IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.NO. 883 OF 2011 (O) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPC.2823/2011 DATED 01-10-2011 REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: MOIDU, S/O.KUNHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS ODAKAYIL HOUSE ATHIYODI P.O. BALUSSERY KOZHIKODE BY ADV.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KURACHUNDU REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURACHUNDU KOZHIKODE BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.I. DAVIS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P. No.883 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.2823 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This Petition is for review of judgment dated 01.09.2011 in O.P(C) No.2823 of 2011 confirming the order passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode with respect to an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode (for short, “the SDM”) relating to the seizure and alleged confiscation of the vehicle. This Court by the judgment sought to be reviewed came to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the order on merit but granted time to the petitioner to deposit the amount directed by the District Collector. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in that the statutory provisions governing the question was not brought to the notice of or considered by this Court. It is pointed out by learned counsel that there is no confiscation as provided under law in view of Section 23A of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act”) and hence the order passed by the SDM as confirmed by the District Collector are illegal. R.P. No.883 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.2823 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. I have heard learned Government Pleader also in that regard. 3. It is seen that the amended provisions of Sec.23A of the Act came into force with effect from 14.06.2010 while the seizure was on 27.07.2010 and the impugned orders were passed subsequently. It is seen from the judgment of this Court that Sec.23A of the Act was not considered by this Court. To that effect I am satisfied that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence the Review Petition is allowed. Judgment dated 01.09.2011 in O.P(C) No.2823 of 2011 is reviewed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv