IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30515 of 2009(H)
1. ABDUL RAUF, S/O.ABDUL SALAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CALICUT.
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.HABEEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :17/11/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 30515 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry
bearing registration No. KL 07 AC 1038. The said vehicle was
seized by the Sub Inspector of Police on 31.5.2009 on the
allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid
pass. The District Collector, Calicut, thereafter issued notice to
the petitioner and after hearing him passed an order dated
28.7.2009 ordering confiscation of the vehicle. The District
Collector however permitted the petitioner to avoid confiscation
by depositing the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in the river management
fund. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner has no case that the sand transported in
his vehicle was covered by a valid pass. In fact Ext.P3 discloses
that at the time of hearing he had conceded that sand was
transported without a valid pass. In such circumstances, the
District Collector was right in ordering confiscation of the vehicle.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the value fixed for the petitioner’s vehicle is
exorbitant. Ext.P1 discloses that the vehicle was registered on
W.P.(C) No. 30515/09
2
22.11.2000 and that it is a nine year old vehicle. The petitioner
has not however produced any material to show the invoice value
of the vehicle. He has also not produced any evidence to show
the amount of loan availed by him from the financier. The best
evidence to show the value of the vehicle is the invoice or the
amount of loan taken by the petitioner to purchase the vehicle.
In the absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the
value fixed by the District Collector in Ext.P3 is on the higher
side. I therefore find no merit to interfere with the value fixed in
Ext.P3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is depending for his livelihood on
the outcome derived from hiring out the vehicle. He submits that
the petitioner may be permitted to pay the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-
in monthly installments.
3. The learned Government Pleader opposes the said
request. In my opinion, the District Collector or the other
respondents can have no grievance if payment of the sum of
Rs.1,25,000/- is assured. I accordingly dispose of this writ
petition with the following directions:
(i) The District Collector, Calicut, shall release the vehicle
W.P.(C) No. 30515/09
3
described in Ext.P3 order to the petitioner in the event of the
petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnishing bank
guarantee for the balance sum of Rs.75,000/-. The balance sum
of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid in three equal monthly installments
commencing from 15th December, 2009.
(ii) If the petitioner does not pay the balance amount as
directed above, on expiry of the time fixed for payment of the
third installment namely 15.3.2010, it will be open to the District
Collector to invoke the bank guarantee and to realise the
proceeds and appropriate it towards the unpaid portion of the
sum of Rs.75,000/-.
(iii) If the petitioner remits the installments in time, the
bank guarantee shall be returned to the petitioner on 15.3.2010
itself or immediately thereafter. The balance amount if any shall
in that event be refunded to the petitioner.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps