The petitioner is the owner of a mini lorry bearing Registration No. KL-07-B 1962. On 30.3.2007, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the third respondent, alleging that the same was found to be engaged in transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Later, as per Ext.P5 issued under Rule 27(3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, the second respondent ordered release of the vehicle on payment of a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the value of the vehicle and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards fine. Ext.P5 order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.22903 of 2007 and the said writ petition was disposed of holding that the second respondent has no authority to W.P.(C).No.3783 of 2010 2 impose fine on the petitioner, while exercising the power under Rule 27(3) of the Rules. Ext.P6 is the judgment in W.P.C No.22903 of 2007. As per Ext.P6 judgment, the matter was remitted by this court to the second respondent for re-consideration. Pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, Ext.P8 order was passed by the second respondent directing release of the vehicle on payment of Rs.60,000/- towards the value the vehicle. Ext.P8 order is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the vehicle of the petitioner had never been used for transporting river sand in violation of the provisions of the Act. Alternatively, it was contended by the petitioner that the fixation of the value of the vehicle of the petitioner at Rs.60,000/- as per Ext.P8 order is without any basis.
3. Ext.P8 order indicates that, it is based on the various materials available on record, the second respondent came to the conclusion that the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in illicit transportation of river sand. There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that the W.P.(C).No.3783 of 2010 3 factual findings arrived at by the second respondent in Ext.P8 order is incorrect or illegal. However, the records indicate that the value of the vehicle which was assessed at Rs.30,000/- initially in Ext.P5 order was raised to Rs.60,000/- in Ext.P8 order.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that there are no materials in the file to indicate as to how the value of the vehicle was raised from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. In the aforesaid circumstances, the fixation of the value of the vehicle at Rs.60,000/- can only be on account of some mistake. Ext.P8 order, in the circumstances, is liable to be modified to that extent.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of clarifying that if the petitioner remits Rs.30,000/- in the place of Rs.60,000/- as directed in Ext.P8, the vehicle shall be released to him.
stu Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.