IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22985 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DHANEEP.T.P., S/O. DAMODHARAN, THANIKKAPARAMBIL, TIRUR TALUK, ANANDAVUR VILLAGE, MALAPPAURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22985 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector, under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, the District Collector found that the petitioner's vehicle was used for illegal transport of river sand. Consequently, the District Collector directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as value of the vehicle, towards river management fund, which is the value fixed by the Tirur Joint Regional Transport Officer for the vehicle. 2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order on two grounds. The first is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before passing that order. The second is that the petitioner purchased the vehicle as per Ext.P1 sale deed, by which, the value was only Rs.2,25,000/- and the value fixed as Rs.2,50,000/- is not the actual market value. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. As far as the first contention is concerned, from Ext.P5, I find that notice was issued to the petitioner thrice. First time the registered notice issued to the petitioner was returned 'unclaimed'. Again twice notices were issued to the petitioner asking him to appear w.p.c.22985/10 2 for a hearing on 6.4.2010 and 28.4.2010. On both occasions, the petitioner did not appear for hearing. As such, I do not think that the petitioner can validly contend that he was not given an opportunity of being heard. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, the District Collector has passed the same in strict conformity with the Act and Rules. Even otherwise, in the writ petition also, the petitioner has not been able to produce any material to prove the legality of the transport of the sand. The District Collector's order finding illegal transport of sand on the materials before him, therefore, does not call for interference. 5. Regarding the second contention that the petitioner purchased the vehicle for Rs.2,25,000/- is not sufficient to prove that the market value of the vehicle is not Rs.2,50,000/-. Two persons may agree to sell and purchase a vehicle for price less than the actual market price for many reasons. That cannot be a reason to hold that the valuation fixed by the Joint RTO is in any way exorbitant. In any event, the difference is only of Rs.25,000/-. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner against Ext.P5. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.22985/10 3