IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37377 of 2010(V)
1. VIJAYANKUTTY NAIR, S/O. KRISHNAPILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLLAM.
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.VASUDEVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 37377 of 2010 V
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry
bearing registration No.KL-02V-1401. On the allegation that
the vehicle was used in violation of the provisions contained in
the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of
Removal of Sand Act, 2001, the lorry was taken into custody
and proceedings were initiated. The RTO assessed the value
of the vehicle on two occasions. As per his first report, the
value of the vehicle was assessed at `2,30,000/-.
Subsequently, he gave another report assessing the value of
the vehicle at `1,10,000/-. In view of the inconsistency in the
two reports, the Sub Divisional Magistrate sought clarification
from the RTO by his letter dated 18-10-2010. At that stage,
the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.34934/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3
judgment, upholding the steps taken by the RTO and directing
W.P.(C) No.37377/2010
: 2 :
that the matter be finalised expeditiously. According to the
petitioner, immediately on production of the judgment, without
awaiting for the RTO’s clarification, Ext.P4 order was issued
on 19-10-2010 by which the SDM ordered release of the
vehicle directing the petitioner to remit 30% of `2,30,000/- and
furnish security for the balance amount. Complaining that the
attempt of the SDM was to overreach the orders of this Court
and challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed.
2. Learned Government Pleader submits that after
issuing letter dated 18-10-2010 seeking clarification from the
RTO, it was only in order not to cause any further delay in the
matter that the SDM has issued Ext.P4 order on 19-10-2010.
Learned Government Pleader further submits that
subsequently the RTO, by his letter dated 10-11-2010,
confirmed that the value of the vehicle is Rs.2,30,000/-.
3. Irrespective of the allegations levelled by the
petitioner, in view of the RTO’s communication on 10-11-
2010, confirming that the value of the vehicle is `2,30,000/-, it
W.P.(C) No.37377/2010
: 3 :
cannot be said that the amounts specified in Ext.P4 is
arbitrary. If that be so, I see no reason to interfere with
Ext.P4.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks