IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13397 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AISHA BEEVI, W/O. NAZAR, AL SAVANIA MANZIL, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIKKEEZH POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13397 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1-158/11 DATED 31.1.11 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DM4-4306/2011 DATED 5.5.11 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).13397/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The vehicle bearing No.KL-40 6051 belonging to the petitioner was seized on 5.1.2011 alleging illegal transportation of river sand which culminated in Ext.P1 order passed by the third respondent. Being aggrieved of the same, petitioner preferred a statutory revision petition before the second respondent who considered the facts and figures and passed Ext.P2 order on 5.5.2011 which is impugned in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Obviously the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court directly, immediately after passing Ext.P2 order by the revisional authority. By virtue of the relevant provisions of law, the petitioner is still having an alternate remedy by way of appeal before the concerned District Court. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to examine the facts and figures. Interference is declined and the writ W.P.(C).13397/11 2 petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy before the concerned Court. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs