IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36356 of 2009(L)
1. PUSHPALATHA, JAYATHARAM VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
... Respondent
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR.
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI.
4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :21/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No. 36356 of 2009 – L
—————————————-
Dated 21st December, 2009
Judgment
The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle
bearing registration No.KL/10X-5535. The said vehicle was
seized by the third respondent on 25.8.2009 on the allegation
that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. A
report was thereupon submitted to the District Collector,
Pathanamthitta. The petitioner thereafter moved the District
Collector seeking interim custody of his vehicle. By Ext.P1 order
passed on 12.10.2009, the District Collector ordered
confiscation of the vehicle. The District Collector however
directed that in the event of the petitioner paying the value
fixed for the vehicle, the vehicle shall be released to her. The
terms and conditions for such release were also set out
therein. The District Collector did not however fix the value of
the vehicle. Instead he directed the Regional Transport Officer,
Pathanamthitta to assess the value of the vehicle and to
inform the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor. The grievance
W.P.(C) No.36356/2009 2
voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though
more than two months have passed after Ext.P1 order was
passed, till date, the Regional Transport Officer,
Pathanamthitta has not assessed the value of the vehicle and
communicated it to the Revenue Divisional Officer. She
submits that in such circumstances, she is not in a position
either to challenge Ext.P1 or to take custody of the vehicle.
2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by
the learned counsel appearing on both sides. A reading of
Ext.P1 indicates that it is a final order. However, the value
fixed for the vehicle is not discernible therefrom. Under section
27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of
Removal of Sand Act, 2001, the owner is entitled to obtain
release of the vehicle if he remits the amount fixed by the
District Collector as the value of the vehicle. Since the District
Collector has not fixed the value of the vehicle when he passed
Ext.P1 order, the petitioner cannot pay the amount fixed as
the value of the vehicle and obtain release of the vehicle. The
petitioner is thereby put to serious prejudice.
W.P.(C) No.36356/2009 3
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction
to the District Collector to pass a revised final order in the
matter fixing the value of the vehicle involved in the
proceedings. The District Collector shall before passing orders
as directed above, afford the petitioner a reasonable
opportunity of being heard. Revised final orders in the matter
shall be passed within one month from the date on which the
petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before
the District Collector. The District Collector shall after a revised
final order is passed communicate a copy thereof to the
petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved thereby, it will be
open to her to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa