AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner is a registered owner of a Mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-2-AD 214, a 2008 model vehicle. The
vehicle was seized on the allegation that, that was used for unauthorized transportation of river sand.
By Ext.P1 order on 15.7.20910 interim custody of the vehicle was given to the petitioner. Ext.P1 shows that the value of the vehicle was fixed
at Rs. 3 lakhs, by the Regional Transport Officer, Kollam. Ext.P1 order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (c) No. 24581/2010. That writ
petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that Ext.P1 be considered in the light of the full bench decision of this Court in Shan C.T. v.
State of Kerala and Ors. 2010 (3) KHC 333.
The matter was reconsidered in Ext. P3 order issued by the RDO on 22.9.2010. Ext.P3 shows that the value of the vehicle has been revised by
the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector at Rs. 7 lakhs and a report to that effect was received by the RDO. Accordingly, the petitioner has been
directed to furnish security as directed by the Full Bench. It is challenging Ext.P3 that the writ petition is filed.
The contention of the petitioner is that on the initial occasion value was fixed by the RTO at Rs. 3 lakhs and without any reason now the value is
fixed at Rs. 7 laksh. In view of the inconsistency in the value as reflected in Ext.P1 and P3, the writ Petition is filed.
The Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, the Government Pleader has obtained instructions. It is
stated that the inconsistency now pointed out by the petitioner was brought to the notice of the RTO and that the RTO has reaffirmed the value of
the vehicle as reflected in Ext.P3 and submitted that the value as reflected in Ext.P3 is correct.
This court does not have expertise to judge the value of the vehicle and it is entirely for the experts in the Motor Vehicle Department to assess
the value of the vehicle. Now that the RTO has confirmed the value of the vehicle as shown in Ext.P3, in the absence of anything to show that the
valuation now done is perverse, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the value assessed.
I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.