IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12675 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.UNNIKURIKKAL, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED KURIKKAL, KALLINGAL HOUSE, THALIPPADAM, NAMBOORIPPOTTI P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR. 4. THE SECRETARY, NILAMBUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NILAMBUR. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.12675 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th July,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a tractor bearing Reg. No.KL-10-Q/301 which was seized by the Village Officer, Edakkara for transportation of river sand without a valid pass. Ext.P1 is the Seizure Mahazar prepared at the time of seizure . Petitioner claimed that the vehicle was used for transportation of sand earlier on 30.8.2008 on the strength of Ext.P2 pass. But, later the customer wanted it to be re-transported to another work site. This was done on 19.9.2008 and after unloading the sand the vehicle was returning for taking another consignment. Seizure was effected at that point of time. Explanation was not accepted. Ext.P3 order was passed directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards River Management Fund for redeeming the vehicle. This was challenged by the petitioner in WP (C) No.287/2009 and by Ext.P4 judgment noticing that the petitioner was not heard before the order was passed, W.P ( C) No.12675 of 2009 2 Ext.P3 was set aside and the District Collector was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. This resulted in Ext.P6 wherein, the value of the vehicle has been enhanced to Rs.55000/-. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I had called for the files leading to Ext.P6. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. One of the conditions raised by the petitioner is that he was not heard by the District Collector before Ext.P6 order was passed. The order will show that the petitioner was heard on 25.4.2009.I have perused the files and I find that petitioner had appeared before the District Collector and has given a statement with his signature on 24.2.2009. Requirement of the principles of natural justice have been satisfied. Petitioner has taken up the contention that the sand was originally transported on 30.8.2008 with valid pass and it was the said consignment that was re-transported on 19.9.2008. There is no materials to indicate subsequent transportation of the same W.P ( C) No.12675 of 2009 3 consignment. It is also difficult to accept this case. A commodity like river sand, apparently in great demand by persons who put up constructions will not remain unutilised for almost three weeks after delivery. 5. No other tenable contentions have been put forward by the petitioner. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P6 order except to the limited extent where the District Collector has enhanced the value of the vehicle in the second round to Rs.55,000/- . Rs.50,000 was fixed under Ext.P3. Accordingly while upholding Ext.P6, it is directed that value of the vehicle shall be treated as Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner shall pay the said amount within two months from today. Writ petition is dismissed subject to the above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.12675 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.12675 of 2009 5