Kerala High Court
Abdul Salam vs The District Collector on 18 February, 2010
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24409 of 2009(U)
1. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE.
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.24409 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P1 order passed by the District Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001. The vehicle involved is the Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-10/Q.705 which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 19.12.2008 at Malaparamba, Kozhikode District alleging that it is not having valid inter-district pass to transport river sand from Malappuram to Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, the pass was seized by the 2nd respondent without making any seizure mahazar from the spot.
2. The main ground taken in the writ petition is that the 1st respondent passed Exhibit P1 order without hearing the petitioner, and by fixing the value of the vehicle as Rs.75,000/-, a direction has been given to deposit the amount or to face prosecution. It is pointed out that this order is bad in law W.P.(C) No.24409/2009 2 especially in the light of the decisions of this Court in Subramanian vs. State of Kerala (2009(1)KLT 77), Sareesh vs. District Collector (2009(2) KLT 906) and Shoukathali vs. Tahsildar (2009(1) KLT 640).
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, a reading of Exhibit P1 shows that the valuation of the vehicle has not been obtained through the Motor Vehicles Department. The further question is whether there was a valid pass at the time of seizure of the vehicle. That can be ascertained only after conducting a due enquiry with notice to the petitioner. What is ordered now is to remit an amount of Rs.75,000/- in the River Management Fund. Unless a proper valuation is taken through the Motor Vehicles Department, it cannot be said that a correct value of the vehicle is reflected in Exhibit P1. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle is a 1999 model vehicle and it will not fetch such a value.
In that view of the matter, Exhibit P1 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order after W.P.(C) No.24409/2009 3 hearing the petitioner and after ascertaining the true value of the vehicle through the Motor Vehicles Department. In the meanwhile, the vehicle will be released to the petitioner if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and on execution of bond furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. He shall further undertake to produce the vehicle as and when directed and also not to transfer/alienate the vehicle pending the proceedings. It shall also be undertaken by the registered owner that he will not cause any damage to the vehicle so as to reduce its value and utility. If the vehicle gets involved in a similar offence after such release, it shall be liable to immediate seizure, in which event it shall not be released until finalisation of the proceedings. Appropriate final orders will be passed within a period of two months.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp