IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37157 of 2007(W)
1. JAIMON M.J., S/O. AUGUSTY JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
4. VILLAGE OFFICER,
5. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
=========================
W.P.(C)NO.37157 OF 2007
=========================
Dated this the 15th day of January 2008
JUDGMENT
Ext.P7 is under challenge. Ext.P7 is issued by the District
Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection River
Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules.
2. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle involved in the
unauthorised transportation of river sand. As is evident from Ext.P5,
soon after the vehicle got involved in the unauthorised transportation
of river sand, petitioner approached this Court and pursuant to Ext.P5
judgment vehicle was released to him. Proceedings thereafter
continued and Ext.P7 order was issued on 18.3.2004. But that was
communicated only under the cover of Ext.P6 on 25.9.2007. Petitioner
submitted that in all bona fides he assumed that the proceedings were
dropped.
3. True, there has been delay in the matter. But since the
petitioner was in possession of the vehicle involved, I do not think that
the delay in communicating Ext.P6 has caused any prejudice to the
petitioner. Petitioner complains about the value of the vehicle fixed in
Ext.P7. It is stated that in Ext.P7, Rs.75,000/= has been levied as the
value of the vehicle. Two contentions are raised by him. One is that
W.P.(C)37157/2007 2
the rule does not enable the respondents to realise the value of the
vehicle and the other is that in terms of Ext.P1 sale agreement, value
of the vehicle was only Rs.44,000/=. Insofar as the competence of the
respondents for levying the value of the vehicle is concerned, I notice
that in terms of Rule 27(3), the respondents are perfectly justified in
realising the value. Further if the value has been properly fixed, there
is no reason to ignore the value so fixed by the respondents. Apart
from the agreement that the petitioner has produced, there is no
material to show that the value fixed in Ext.P7 is erroneous. In this
view, the contention raised is unsustainable. Petitioner submits that
the mahazar has not been properly prepared. In view of the findings in
Ext.P7, I do not think this argument now raised has any worth to be
examined in detail.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
JUDGE
css/
W.P.(C)37157/2007 3