IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7391 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.D.JOY, AGED 36, S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, KOLEYADEN HOUSE, P.O.KADUKUTTY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.G.RAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. PIN 680 001 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCE, KORATTY, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001 R1 TOR3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 7391 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the first respondent on 2.8.2010 under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act/Rules. The case of the petitioner is that, on the date of passing the impugned order, the first respondent was not vested with any power or jurisdiction to have passed the said order, in view of the amended provisions, by virtue of the Ordinance No.38 of 2010. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that Ext.P9 order has been passed on 2.8.2010; while the amended provisions had come into force with effect from 14.6.2010. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the appropriate authority. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside and first respondent is directed to transmit the records pertaining to seizure of the vehicle bearing No.KL-45/D wpc 7391/2011 2 4367 forming the subject matter of Ext.P9 to the third respondent forthwith and third respondent shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within `six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent for further steps. The claim, if any, for interim custody of the vehicle shall also be considered by third respondent, in tune with the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in Shan C T V. State of Kerala and others (2010(3) KHC 333). Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk