IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 264 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1334/2011 Dated 14/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ NITHIN RAJAN, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 22 YEARS, PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATTAM P.O., ALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT (AGREEMENT OWNER AND POSSESSOR OF KL-45-A-6608). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.264 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order of the District Collector confiscating the vehicle involved in alleged unauthorised removal of river sand and ordering release of the same to the appellant on payment of Rs.4.75 lakhs, the then estimated value of the vehicle. 2. The appellant though is not the registered owner of the vehicle is a person who purchased the vehicle under agreement from the registered owner. Confiscation order is also passed against the appellant treating him as the owner of the vehicle. Even though learned counsel contended that the appellant is discharged from the criminal offences charged, we do not think the appellant is entitled to get release of the vehicle unconditionally because the District Collector based on the findings in the mahazar and evidence found that there was an attempt to load sand from the river without any W.A.No.264/2011 2 pass or permit and the vehicle was also seized from the Kadavu. After hearing both sides, what we find is that the respondents have allowed the vehicle to remain corroded in the course of last nearly two years. Considering the substantial erosion and the consequential reduction in the value, we feel the vehicle could be released to the appellant on payment of the present value, which we refix at Rs.1.50 lakhs. The RTO will grant exemption from payment of motor vehicle tax during the period the vehicle was in the custody i.e. from May, 2009 to February, 2011, and the appellant will remit arrears of motor vehicle tax, if any, in respect of the vehicle. On production of the RC book with up to date payment of tax and along with it receipt of payment of Rs.1.50 lakhs to the river management fund towards the value of the vehicle payable as per this judgment by the appellant, the vehicle will be released by the Collector to the appellant. This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg