IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1300 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH, S/O.KRISHNA MAMPATTA HOUSE, EZHOOR PO,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUR POLICE STATION,TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1300 OF 2011(J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-55-B-712. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners on the allegation of having used the vehicle in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The proceedings culminated in Ext.P2 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer holding that the provisions of the Act were violated and that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated. On that basis the petitioner was given an opportunity to get the vehicle released on payment of the value. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 petitioner filed Ext.P3 application before the District Collector and that application is pending. Going by the provisions of the Act as amended, the first respondent is conferred with revisional powers over Ext.P2. 2. Therefore I direct the first respondent to treat Ext.P3 as a revision filed in terms of the provisions of the Act and pass orders thereon. It is clarified that in the meanwhile if the petitioner so desires, it will be open to the petitioner to move for WPC.No. 1300/09 :2 : the interim custody of the vehicle in question in which event, it is directed that the fist respondent shall consider the same in accordance with the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333] . The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned authority for appropriate action. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/