IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 887 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16259/2009 Dated 09/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WP ---------------------------------- ELYAS,S/O.MOHAMMED KATTAYATH, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,SOPPUMPADI, PATTUPONNANI PO, PONNANI SOUTH,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP -------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. BY G.P. SMT. K. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 887 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge declining to interfere with Ext.P2 order passed by the Collector directing the 2nd respondent to release the vehicle on payment of value of vehicle which was fixed at Rs. 1,80,000/-. Appellant's main contention is that vehicle was manufactured in the year 2003, which is clear from the registration certificate and therefore the value fixed is very high. Further, we notice from the RC book that it is a light commercial vehicle and therefore the value fixed is on the high side. However, this is not the only reason for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge and that of the Collector because we find another reason to interfere with the finding of the Collector, which is the lapse committed by him in not selling the vehicle and keeping it to be corroded in Government custody for a period of over one and a half years. The erosion in value of the vehicle is something WA 887/2010 2 on which respondents cannot wash off their hands because they could have sold the vehicle on default in payment by the appellant. Government Pleader also confirmed that so far the vehicle is not sold which proves beyond doubt the indifference of respondents in taking care of the interest of the State. We therefore allow the Writ Appeal by reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the WPC by modifying Ext.P2 by reducing the amount from Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The vehicle will be released to the appellant immediately on payment after unloading the sand. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk WA 887/2010 3