Moosa vs The District Collector Kozhikode
2021 Latest Caselaw 3372 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.838 OF 2021(D)


PETITIONER/S:

                MOOSA,S/O ABOOBACKER,
                PUTHENPEEDIAKKAL HOUSE,
                KODIYATHUR P O, MUKKOM (VIA),
                KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
                SRI.M.ANUROOP

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE,
                CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020.

      2         THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
                KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION,
                KOZHIKODE-673020.

      *3        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODUVALLY (CORRECTED)
                KODUVALLY P O, PIN-673572,
                KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

*ADDRESS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS FOLLOWS AS PER
ORDER DATED 29.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021

                 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUKKOM
                 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673572

      4         JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KODUVALLY
                KODUVALLY P O, PIN-673572,
                KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

                GP : SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.838 OF 2021(D)                  2




                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode, that confiscates a vehicle that was initially

seized in connection with an offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks

and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. In the writ petition, the case of the

petitioner is essentially that while fixing the redemption fine for release of the

vehicle, the Sub Divisional Magistrate adopted a figure of Rs.2,10,000/- as the

market value of the goods, without taking note of the fact that it was the same

value that had been fixed provisionally in the year 2017 when the vehicle was

seized. It is pointed out that the vehicle has since been lying exposed to the

rigours of the weather and consequently the value would have depreciated

considerably and it is the reduced value that ought to have been taken by the

respondent for the purposes of fixing the redemption fine in November 2020.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the

submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the redemption value of the seized vehicle has been

erroneously fixed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P2

and direct the 2nd respondent Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass fresh orders in the

matter after assessing the vehicle in question to a reasonable amount of market

value, taking note of the principles that should inform the fixation of the market

value for the purposes of redemption fine. The 2 nd respondent shall pass fresh

orders as directed after hearing the petitioner within one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this

judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent Sub

Divisional Magistrate for further action.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

sd

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 29/09/2020 (NO.57/2411/2020) OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A.7935/14 DATED 04.11.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.