IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37650 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- SHIHABUDHEEN K., S/O. MUHAMMED, PILAKKALKANDI HOUSE, KIZHISSERY, KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37650 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P1 and P2. Petitioner is the owner of a Goods Carriage Vehicle bearing registration no. KL-10AB/2838. Proceedings were initiated, on the allegation that the vehicle was used for the unauthorised transportation of river sand. Petitioner states that nothing was heard in the matter and that the petitioner was not served with any orders passed by the District Collector. 2. According to the petitioner, in November 2008, he received Exhibit P1 letter proposing to auction of vehicle articles and Exhibit P2 order passed by the District Collector levying value and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Government pleader on instruction submits that ExhibitP2 order passed by the District Collector was communicated to the petitioner on 31/05/2008. When he was asked whether there is any document to prove that Exhibit P2 was served on the petitioner, the W.P.(C) No. 37650 /2008 2 answer was that Exhibit P2 was served by ordinary post. 4. Admitted position is that there is nothing on record to show that Exhibit P2 was served on petitioner. If that be so, there cannot be any delay in challenging Exhibit P2. 5. A perusal of Exhibit P2 shows that the District Collector relied mainly the seizure mahazar for fixing the guilt of the petitioner. In Exhibit P2, no other documents have been dealt with and hence Exhibit P2 deserves to be set aside for non-consideration of relevant aspects and for reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, Exhibit P2 is set aside. First respondent is directed to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and pass orders duly in adverting to the contentions raised. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm