Petitioner challenged vehicle valuation after seizure. Court found disparity in assessment values and directed filing an application to the District Collector for re-assessment instead of interim relief.
Petitioner directed to file application before District Collector for re-assessment of vehicle value.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/22ND JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 2716 of 2012 (L)
PETITIONER(S):
MUHAMMED ANWAR, 858, BUSHARA MANZIL, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIS.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DIVISION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
3. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. VINCENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 2716 of 2012 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXT.P1 | COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT. |
| EXT.P3 | COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G/277/2011/QK DATED 07/02/2011 OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KARUNAGAPALLY. |
| EXT.P4 | COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 |
|---|---|
| BY ADV. RAJESH MURALI TO THE APIO, OFFICE OF THE | |
| REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.2716 OF 2012
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KBF 4714, a TATA HGV-open model-1985. The vehicle was seized by the Kallada East Police on 20.04.2010 on the allegation of violation of the provisions of Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.
W.P.(C) No.2716/2012
2
criteria. Ext.P3 communication of the Joint Regional Transport Officer addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer is produced in this context. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that item No.2 in Ext.P3 is a 1985 model vehicle similar to that of the petitioner's vehicle where the value is shown as Rs.65,000/- and item No.3 is another vehicle of 1991 model where the value is shown as Rs.75,000/-. It is evident from the documents produced that there is disparity in the matter, it is pointed out.
W.P.(C) No.2716/2012
3
petitioner is having no dispute about the said valuation, he will get the vehicle released by remitting the amount. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition for compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE
smp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for challenging vehicle valuation can be disposed of by directing an alternative remedy application.
Muhammad Anwar
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam
The Regional Transport Officer, Kollam
Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kollam
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
