High Court of KeralaWP(C)/2611/2009closed

Udaya Kumar v. State Of Kerala And Others

2015-09-15Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/24TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 2611 of 2009 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------- UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 36, S/O. RAMAKRSIHNAN, ANANDA NIVAS, PADHITHODI VEEDU CHRKKAPARAMBU, ANGADIPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S):

--------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. DISTRIT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM

3. FAKRUDEEN, S/O. HUSSAIN, THEKKAN VEEDU, ANGADIPURAM PERUNTHILMANNA.

R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 2611 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 10.1.08. EXHIBIT P2: COPYOF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.8.08. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE COURT BELOW DATED 11.3.08. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2611 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 27 of the Kerala Protection of the River Banks and Regulation of Sand Act directing the petitioner to deposit vehicle value of 25,000/- and a fine of 15,000/-.

₹ ₹ 2.

The petitioner alleges that he was the owner of a goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL9-N-1815, which was seized by the revenue authorities on the allegation that the vehicle was involved in transporting illicit sand and the vehicle was brought to the Perinthalmanna Police Station. According to the petitioner, even before the date of the alleged seizure, he had transferred the vehicle to the name of the 3rd respondent; and the 3rd respondent is the present owner. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

I have perused the impugned order. The 2nd

W.P.(C) No. 2611 of 2009 ..2..

respondent has directed a deposit of 25,000/- towards ₹ value of the vehicle and 15,000/- towards fine. The ₹ imposition of fine of 15,000/- is incompetent and the ₹ District Collector has no power to impose the fine as above. However, on going through the materials now placed on board, this Court feels that the direction to pay 25,000/- as the value of the vehicle does not call for an ₹ interference.

The learned senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 3rd respondent has already approached this Court with Crl.M.C. No.907/2008, in which this Court has directed the release of the vehicle on deposit of 25,000/-.

₹ As the 3rd respondent has obtained an order as above, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having any subsisting grievance at present. Therefore, the writ petition is closed.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-