Muhammed Anwar, 858, Bushara Manzil, Thazhava, Karunagapally vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam, Kollam Division, Kollam, Pin-691001, The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Kollam, Pin-691001 and Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Kollam, Pin-691 001.

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—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. It is stated that the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer for getting the custody of his vehicle. Ext.P1 is a copy of the valuation statement therein the value of the vehicle is shown as Rs. 1,20,000/-. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent to re-assess the value of the vehicle and Ext.P2 is the valuation statement which shows that the amount has come down to Rs. 85,000/-. According to the petitioner, the same is also excessive.

It is the case of the petitioner that the value has been fixed by the concerned officer without following any relevant 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. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. What is involved is only a request for assessing the real value of the vehicle. In the light of the difference discernible from Exts.P2 and P3, if the petitioner files an application before the competent authority namely, the District Collector (as the Ordinance giving powers to the 1st respondent has lapsed), the same will be entertained and appropriate orders will be passed to re-assess the value of the vehicle by another officer of the Motor Vehicles Department of the same District within a further period of three weeks after the filing of the application and if the 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.