IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34934 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VIJAYANKUTTY NAIR,S/O.KRISHNAPILLAI, 796,VIJAYAKRISHNA VILASOM,CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VASUDEVAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM – 691 001. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM – 691 001. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,KOLLAM – 691 001. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PARAVOOR POLICE STATION,PARAVOOR,KOLLAM – 691 301. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34934 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-02 V-1401. Proceedings are initiated against the aforesaid vehicle under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It appears that for giving interim custody of the vehicle, the Sub Divisional Magistrate sought valuation from the RTO, Kollam and that the RTO, Kollam has initially given a report assessing the value at Rs.2,30,000. Subsequently, the very same officer gave yet another report assessing the value at Rs.1,10,000. In view of the inconsistency in the two reports, the Sub Divisional Magistrate sought clarification from the 3rd respondent. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as seen from Ext.P5, there is inconsistency between the two reports submitted by the 3rd respondent, I cannot find fault with the 2nd respondent for having sought clarification. Therefore, all that is possible is to direct the 2nd respondent to get the value of the vehicle assessed expeditiously and pass final WPC No. 34934/10 :2 : orders in the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall expeditiously get the value of the vehicle assessed and consider the request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle on that basis. Orders shall be passed at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp