IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1457 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RATHEESH, S/O.KOCHUCHERUKKAN, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUZHAKKUNNIL HOUSE, THUMPAMON THAZHAM, MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PIN - 689 645. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ADOOR, PIN - 689 645. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 645. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 645. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1457 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-17 D 2495. Proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 were initiated against the vehicle, which resulted in Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 order shows that the value of the vehicle was assessed at ` 3,00,000/-. However, despite the above, the vehicle was ordered to be released on remittance of ` 1.5 lakhs. Accordingly, the vehicle was released by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P2 order on the petitioner remitting the amount. Subsequently, RDO has issued Ext.P3 order calling upon the petitioner to remit further amount of ` 1.5 lakhs. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Counsel contends that once order was passed, petitioner remitted the amount and the vehicle is released, RDO has become functus officio. and therefore, the order is without . 2. Normally, after an order is passed and the vehicle is released, RDO seizes to have any power in the matter. However, WPC No. 1457/11 :2 : this is a case where the value of the vehicle was fixed at ` 3,00,000/-. Despite the above, the vehicle was ordered to the released to the petitioner, on the petitioner remitting ` 1.5 lakhs. Admittedly, statute does not enable the RDO or the District Collector to release the vehicle on remitting any amount less than the value of it. If that be so, the order of the District Collector, implemented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, releasing the vehicle for ` 1.5 lakhs wherein the value of the vehicle is assessed to be ` 3,00,000/- was clearly a wrong one. If that be so, the effect of Ext.P3 is one of correction of a patent mistake. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that the Revenue Divisional Officer was perfectly within his power in having issued Ext.P3 order. 3. True, the counsel has a case that the order was issued without notice. But then, having regard to the fact that, even on Ext.P1, value of the vehicle has been fixed at ` 3,00,000/- and as no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by virtue of absence of notice, I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P3 order on that ground as well. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp