Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 342 (KER)

Rahim v. District Collector

2010-05-13

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2010
Judgment : Petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 final order passed on 7.4.2010 whereby the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-E-9552 belonging to the petitioner which was seized on 26.10.2009 for transporting river sand without valid pass has been ordered to be released on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1.55 Lakhs in lieu of confiscation. 2. The main ground of challenge raised in the Writ Petition is that, on an earlier occasion, the very same vehicle was seized (on 19.5.2009) in respect of similar offence and on finalisation of the proceedings, the first respondent had ordered release of the vehicle, in lieu of confiscation, on depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/- as born by Exts.P4; pursuant to which the vehicle was got released on satisfying the said amount as discernible from Ext.P5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent, having already ordered a sum of Rs.30,000/- as payable towards the ‘River Management Fund’ in respect of the very same vehicle, so as to have it released earlier, it is not now open to the first respondent to take a different turn causing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.1.55 Lakhs for releasing the vehicle in respect of the similar/subsequent cause of action. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents as well. 4. Obviously, Ext.P3 final order is a self-contained one, clearly revealing that the seizure of the vehicle on 26.10.2009 was on the ‘4th occasion’ in respect of similar offences. It is seen that vehicle was seized in the year 2008 and the same was released on 16.11.2008 by the authorities of Attingal Police Station pursuant to the orders passed by the JFCM-I, Attingal in C.M.P.No.7628 of 2008. In spite of this, the petitioner pursued the very same exercise and the vehicle was seized on 20.1.2009 by the very same police and it was released as per the orders of the same Magistrate’s Court in C.M.P.No.497 of 2009. Undaunted by the course of events, the petitioner illegally transported river sand again, when the vehicle was seized by the police on 19.5.2009, which led to Ext.P4 final order dated 5.8.2009 passed by the first respondent, ordering release of the vehicle on depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the ‘River Management Fund’, to avoid confiscation. This is the 4th instance, that the same vehicle has been seized again (on 26.10.2009) for similar offence. 5. This is the 4th instance, that the same vehicle has been seized again (on 26.10.2009) for similar offence. 5. In connection with the finalisation of the proceedings, the petitioner was heard in person on 7.1.2010. The first respondent chose to fix the market value of the vehicle by making appropriate reference to the Regional Transport Officer, who submitted a report bearing No.C8/541/Attingal/10 dated 27.2.2010 fixing the market value as Rs.1.55 Lakhs and it was accordingly, that the said amount was ordered to be paid by the petitioner, vide Ext.P3, to the ‘River Management Fund’, so as to release of the vehicle, in lieu of confiscation. 6. The sequence of events as described in Ext.P3 is not at all disputed from the part of the petitioner. There is absolutely not even a single sentence in the Writ Petition, whereby the petitioner has denied commission of the offence, or as to involvement of the vehicle in respect of the various offences committed at different point of time. The only grounds raised in the Writ Petition are that, the first respondent ought to have fixed the quantum to the extent as ordered in Ext.P4 earlier, more so when the vehicle was of 1995 model; that the 1st respondent ought not to have called for a report for fixing the value from the 3rd respondent; that no mahazar was prepared by the 2nd respondent on seizure and that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. 7. The relevant provisions with regard to the commission of offence and confiscation are S.23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, to be read with sub-r.(3) of R.27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. As per the above provisions of law, the District Collector is very much vested with ample powers to fix the value of the vehicle and the provision for release of the vehicle, is only an enabling one, so as to avoid further steps and confiscation. As per the above provisions of law, the District Collector is very much vested with ample powers to fix the value of the vehicle and the provision for release of the vehicle, is only an enabling one, so as to avoid further steps and confiscation. The value fixed by the first respondent while ordering release of the vehicle on the earlier occasion as per Ext.P4 (Rs.30,000/-) was never with reference to the market value of the vehicle and obviously, no report was called for from the R.T.O. The lenient view taken by the first respondent earlier (which itself was not warranted under any circumstances, in view of the repeated offences being committed by the petitioner) is not a bar for the first respondent to have the subsequent cause of action considered in accordance with law and to have ordered release of the vehicle on condition that the petitioner deposited the market value of the vehicle as assessed by the R.T.O. vide his report dated 27.2.2010. Further, the course followed by the first respondent is very much in conformity with the direction given by a Division Bench of this Court as to the fixation of the market value, vide judgment dated 4.12.2009 in W.A.No.2578 of 2009. 8. The contentions raised by the petitioner that no mahazar was prepared by the 2nd respondent in connection with the seizure effected on 26.10.2009 is devoid of any merit or bona fides, as the relevant mahazar is specifically adverted to in Ext.P3 order and no such contention/objection is seen raised before the 1st respondent. Similarly, the alleged denial of opportunity of hearing is also without any basis, in view of Ext.P2 notice informing the date of hearing and it was pursuant to the hearing held on 7.1.2010, that the report of the 3rd respondent was called for, as to the market value of the vehicle, before passing the impugned order, as referred to therein. In the above circumstance, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. The grounds raised in support thereof are not tenable. No interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.