IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21723 of 2007(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SAINUDHEEN, S/O. MAMMIKUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHATTIRI, PARAVANNA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. 3. TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.TEK CHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21723/2007 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE RC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE OBJECTIOND T. 09/05/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18/5/2007 IN CRL. MC NO. 1450/2007, ON THIS COURT. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER NO. P.5. 20197/07 DT. 18/6/2007 BY THE R1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. / TRUE COPY / tga P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 21723 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 2nd April , 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's vehicle bearing number KL.10/5-3330 was seized by the authorities under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act (herein after referred to as the Act). Subsequently, the custody of the vehicle was ordered to be released as per Ext. P3 order passed by this Court, subject to the condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-, pursuant to which the vehicle was released to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order. It was also made clear in Ext. P3 that such release of the vehicle would be subject to the orders to be passed by the District Collector in the confiscation proceedings. 2. Pursuant to the above, the first respondent finalised the proceedings and issued Ext. P4 order, whereby a sum of Rs. W.P.(C) No. 21723 OF 2007 2 60,000/- was fixed as the value of the vehicle which has to be deposited by the petitioner to the River Management Fund, in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle and to make the interim order (releasing the interim custody) absolute. In respect of the offence committed by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was fixed as the fine, thus making a total amount to be deposited as Rs. 85,000/-. After giving credit to the sum of Rs.10,000/- already effected by the petitioner, pursuant to Ext. P3 verdict passed by this Court for releasing the interim custody, the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- was directed to be deposited vide Ext. P4 order, sustainability of which is subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of admission and granting the interim order by this Court on 16.07.2007, the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as a condition for staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P4. The learned counsel submits that this amount has already been deposited and as such, it has also to be given credit to. W.P.(C) No. 21723 OF 2007 3 4. While upholding the constitutional validity of the Act and Rules as per the decision in Subramanian vs. State of Kerala 2009(1) KLT 77, this Court had observed that orders are being passed by the District Collectors in a mechanical manner without any regard to the actual market value of the vehicle, while fixing the amount ordered to be deposited by the owner of the vehicle to be accounted against the River Management Fund, as a condition to release the vehicle - in lieu of confiscation and in the said circumstances, the cases involved therein were remanded for being re-considered in the manner specified therein. 5. In the instant case, it is relevant to note that Ext.P4 order has been passed by the District Collector fixing the value of the vehicle “as suggested by the petitioner himself” at Rs.60,000/-; despite the fact that it was a 'Tata 407 Mini Lorry' of the make November, 2003, as evident from a copy of the R.C. Book produced as Ext.P1. Since such fixation of price of the vehicle was as suggested by the petitioner himself, the petitioner cannot take a U-turn and contend before this Court that fixation W.P.(C) No. 21723 OF 2007 4 of the value by the District Collector ( to be deposited to the River Management Fund) is not correct or proper in any manner. This being the position, the challenge raised against Ext.P4 fails. However, as noted already, at the time of passing the interim order dated 16.07.2007, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- was directed to be deposited by the petitioner, which is stated as satisfied by him. If such amount is already deposited, the same has necessarily to be set off from the remaining sum of Rs.75,000/- demanded to be paid vide Ext. P4. It is made clear that the respondents can proceed with further steps pursuant to Ext. P4 only to the extent as specified. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation, declining interference on merits. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk