The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the District Collector and Ext.P5 communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer. By Ext.P4 order, the District Collector had confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner, which was found to have been involved in the transporting of river sand in contravention of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The District Collector fixed the value of the vehicle as Rs.3 lakhs and by Ext.P5 communication, the petitioner was informed, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, that if the said amount was not paid by the petitioner, the vehicle would be put to auction. As already noted, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5.
2. It is noted that on admission of the writ petition, by an order dated 11.05.2012, the auction proposed as per Ext.P5 order was stayed by this Court. The said stay order continues to be in force. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was initially confiscated by an order dated 12.11.2010 but, since that order was passed by the District Collector, and the jurisdiction for passing the order had since been vested in the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner had approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.3040 of 2011, which was disposed by Ext.P3 judgment dated 31.01.2011. By Ext.P3 judgment dated 31.01.2011, the order passed by the District Collector was set aside and there was a direction issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders thereon. It was pursuant to the said judgment of this Court that, by Ext.P4 order, the District Collector once again proceeded to pass an order of confiscation by fixing the value of the vehicle as Rs.3 lakhs.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the value of the vehicle was fixed by the District Collector after making enquiries with the Motor Vehicle Department. It is also pointed out that, insofar as the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the vehicle was actually transporting river sand, there was no justification for challenging the orders passed by the District Collector.
4. I have heard Smt.Indu Susan Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Smt.Sunitha Vinod, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that in this case, although the initial order of confiscation passed by the District Collector was set aside by this Court for the reason that the authority vested with the jurisdiction to pass orders in the matter was the RDO and a direction was issued to the RDO to pass fresh orders, it is the District Collector who once again proceeded to pass Ext.P4 order which is impugned in the writ petition. That apart, this is a case where the vehicle has been lying in the custody of the respondents since May, 2010. Despite the fact that Ext.P3 judgment was dated 31.01.2011, the consequential order passed by the District Collector is dated 05.12.2011. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed and on account of the interim order, the vehicle continues to remain in the custody of the respondents without having been sold. While Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector, to the extent it fixes the value of the vehicle as Rs.3 lakhs, is impugned in the writ petition, I must also take note of the fact that it has been almost 4 years since the confiscation of the vehicle and all these years the vehicle has been remaining idle. The possibility of wear and tear of the vehicle on account of its being exposed to the rigours of the weather cannot be ruled out. The said fact would also have an adverse impact on the inherent value of the vehicle. Thus, I am of the view that, taking into account the number of years that has elapsed since the confiscation of the vehicle, and the inherent flaw in Ext.P4 order which, apart from having been passed by the wrong authority, also does not take into account the relevant facts for fixing the value of the vehicle for the purposes of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector has to be quashed, to the extent it fixes the value of the vehicle at Rs.3 lakhs. Accordingly, while upholding the confiscation of the vehicle, I feel it will be appropriate to fix the value of the vehicle at Rs.1.5 lakhs, in lieu of Rs.3 lakhs fixed by the District Collector in Ext.P4 order.
Resultantly, the writ petition, in its challenge to the value fixed by the District Collector in Ext.P4 order succeeds. Ext.P4 order shall now read as having fixed the value of the vehicle at Rs.1.5 lakhs. On the petitioner paying the said amount to the District Collector, the District Collector shall direct the vehicle to be released to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P4 order, as modified by this judgment, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/