Kerala High Court
Basheer vs District Collector on 15 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 20072 OF 2010
PETITIONER/S:
BASHEER
ANORA VEEDU,POOVTTUPARAMBA PO, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DIST. COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICECHEVAYUR
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
0
SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 20072 of 2010
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
W.P.(C) No. 20072 of 2010
=============================================================
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
"I. To direct the 4th respondent to consider Exhibit P8
representation in accordance with law and within a
time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and to keep in
abeyance all further proceedings in furtherance to P6
and P7 orders till such disposal.
II. To grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper."
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order by which
a vehicle is confiscated. The petitioner's goods vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KL-01/E-4858 was seized by the 2nd respondent
alleging illegal sand transportation. The 1st respondent -
District Collector after conducting an enquiry directed the
petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the river
W.P.(C). No. 20072 of 2010
management fund as fine. The petitioner challenges the same.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
District Collector passed the order without serving the
documents relied on by the Collector. The counsel for the
petitioner also submitted that the value fixed for the vehicle is
also excessive. The Government Pleader submitted that a
perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the District Collector
considered all the aspects and thereafter passed the impugned
order and therefore, there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P1.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Government Pleader. A perusal of Ext.P1
will not show that the District Collector passed the order after
W.P.(C). No. 20072 of 2010
serving the copy of the seizure mahazar to the petitioner. The
petitioner has got a case that the assessment of the value of the
vehicle done by the District Collector is arbitrarily and
unilaterally and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. In the light of the same, I think Ext.P1 can be set
aside and the District Collector can be directed to reconsider the
matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and also after giving a copy of the seizure mahazar to the
petitioner.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P1 is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the
matter after giving a copy of the seizure mahazar to
the petitioner and also after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as
W.P.(C). No. 20072 of 2010
possible, at any rate, within three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 20072 of 2010
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20072/2010
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
09.03.2010 BEARING NUMBER D6-55414/09
PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. **
(SUBSTITUTED) ** TRUE COPY OF ORDER
DATED 03.01.2010 BEARING NUMBER D6-
55414/09 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE PRODUCED ALONG
WITH IA NO.11092/17 IS SUBSTITUTED AS
PER ORDER DATED 21.07.2017 IN IA
NO.11092/2017.
