IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18460 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRASANTH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAALUKOODI, PAAYIPPADU, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAYIPOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 587. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 101. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. GP SMT. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18460 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF R.C. BOOK EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C9-51689/10 DATED 10.5.2011 (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C). 18460/2011 .......................................... Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 an order passed by the District Collector exercising the revisional power and also the power under 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a Mini lorry bearing registration No.KL 4E 774. Proceedings were initiated against the vehicle on the allegation that it was used in violation of the provisions of the Act. Proceedings culminated in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate confiscating the vehicle. Revision was filed by the petitioner before the District Collector and that revision was considered with notice to him. By Ext.P2 order, the revision was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner has been given an opportunity to redeem his vehicle on payment of Rs.1 Lakh being its value. It is this order which is under challenge. 3. The ground on which the petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P2 is that the third respondent did not given him an W.P.(C).18460/11 2 appropriate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. In my view, apart from issuing notice and hearing the parties, there is no question of anybody being given any opportunity to adduce evidence. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised. In so far as the value of the vehicle fixed is concerned, it is evident from the order that the value has been fixed by the Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department. In the absence of any material to conclude that there is any error in the valuation, I do not find anything erroneous in the order passed. 4. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs