High Court Kerala High Court

Sudheesh A.P. vs The Sub Divisional … on 4 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Sudheesh A.P. vs The Sub Divisional … on 4 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 86 of 2011(I)


1. SUDHEESH A.P., S/O.PARAMESWARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/RDO,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :04/01/2011

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                    W.P.(C) NO. 86 OF 2011
                 =====================

            Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 to the extent he is not

given the freedom to reclaim the vehicle by remitting the value

thereof.

2. Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of vehicle

bearing Regn.No.KL-3 C-6823, against which proceedings under

the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal

of Sand Act, 2001 were initiated. Those proceedings resulted in

Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent ordering confiscation of

the vehicle under Section 23A of the Act. In this writ petition,

petitioner complains that, in Ext.P2 order, he has not been given

the freedom to reclaim the vehicle by remitting the value.

3. I heard the learned Government Pleader who submits

that if the petitioner is desirous of availing of that opportunity, it

will be open to the petitioner to move the RDO himself and that

thereupon the RDO will take steps as required under the proviso

to Section 23A(3).

WPC No. 86/11
:2 :

Proviso to 23A(3) of the Act reads as under:-

Provided that the owner of the articles seized or the
person having its control shall be given the freedom to
reclaim it in lieu of confiscation by remitting an amount
equal to the value of the articles except sand, as fixed
by the Collector

4. Therefore, if the registered owner of a vehicle, which

has been confiscated under Section 23A(3), is desirous of getting

the vehicle released by remitting the value fixed by the District

Collector, that liberty available cannot be denied. Now that the

petitioner is desirous of getting the vehicle released, I direct that

it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the 1st

respondent, who thereupon shall get the value of the vehicle fixed

by the District Collector and give the petitioner an opportunity to

remit the value and get the vehicle released.

5. This process shall be completed by the 1st respondent

within one month of the petitioner making the application as

indicated above producing a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp