IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26573 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJENDRAN.B., S/O.BHASKARAN, PUTHENPURA KIZHAKKETHIL, KOIVILA, KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL SMT.BIMALA BABY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 502. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26573 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED IN FORM NO.A BY THE CANAL OFFICER. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE POLIE AND SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE POLICE AND SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2011. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION ORDER DATED 27.09.2011 PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 26573 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a country boat bearing licence No. KQN 3468/2009-2010. Proceedings were initiated under the protection of River Banks and Regulation of removal of Sand Act, 2001. Finally the second respondent passed Ext.P5 order directing that the country boat be released to the owner. This order specifically says that on examining the matter he was satisfied that boat was not carrying river sand and therefore, no proceedings need be initiated against the boat in question. This order was passed on 6.9.2011. 2. Subsequently, the RDO issued Ext.P6 order dated 27.9.2011. This order states that the 3rd respondent was examined on 24.9.2011 and that on such examination, the RDO was satisfied that the petitioner had committed violation of the provisions of the Act and that therefore, he cancelled Ext.P5 and ordered that the boat be released only on payment of the value. It is this order which is in challenge. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the WPC.No.26573/2011 : 2 : petitioner is that the Act does not confer any power of review on the second respondent. It is also contended that proceedings after 6.9.2011 were without notice to the petitioner and therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. I have considered the submissions made. The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, does not confer any power of review on the second respondent. In such a case he could not have reviewed his order and if anyone is aggrieved by any order passed, the remedy is under Section 23(B) of the Act, which enables the filing of revision before the District Collector. Therefore, in the absence of any power, second respondent could not have cancelled Ext.P5 order. In that view I am satisfied that Ext.P6 has been issued without jurisdiction and therefore, this order has to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6 and directing that so long as Ext.P5 is in force, the said order shall be implemented. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to JUDGE