Ashraf Punnappala vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 22 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17835 of 2009(Y)


1. ASHRAF PUNNAPPALA, AGED 39 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

3. THE TAHSILDAR NILAMBUR TALUK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :22/07/2009

 O R D E R
                         V.GIRI, J
                      .......................
                   W.P.(C).17835/2009
                      .......................
           Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009

                       JUDGMENT

A mini lorry belonging to the petitioner bearing

registration No.KL-10-Z/9739, was seized when it was

allegedly transporting river sand without valid pass. This

is evidenced by Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. Ultimately

Ext.P3 order of confiscation has been passed by the

District Collector, after finding that the vehicle was

involved in an illicit transportation of river sand but

permitting the petitioner to pay an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- for redeeming the vehicle. This is under

challenge in this writ petition. As per the directions

issued by this Court, files have been produced by the

learned Government Pleader.

2. I have perused the files as well. That the vehicle

was found involved in an illicit transportation of river

sand without valid pass is not a matter which is seriously

disputed. In fact I do not find any written objection

submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector.

In the circumstances, the finding that the vehicle was

W.P.(C).17835/09
2

involved in illicit transportation of river sand is only to

be confirmed and I do so.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the driver of the vehicle had misused the same without

the consent of the petitioner. Even the said objection

was not raised before the District Collector. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that at any

rate value of the vehicle has been fixed on the higher

side. Vehicle in question is a 2006 model mini lorry and

going by the market value it cannot be considered as

having been fixed on the higher side. I do not find any

grounds to interfere with Ext.P3. Writ petition is

dismissed accordingly.

It is made clear that if the petitioner pays the

amount as per Ext.P3 within five weeks from today,

vehicle shall be released to him.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs