IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6379 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- SAJU.K.B., S/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT KARUMUTTAM, PAKKIL.P.O., NATTAKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.SAJI JACOB RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686001. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686001. 5. THE THAHASILDAR, KOTTAYAM-686001. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY CIRCLE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION-686102. 8. THE GEOLOGIST KOTTAYAM-686001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.6379 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the Ist March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent with regard to the alleged illegal transportation of river sand in the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-07 BA 4360 belonging to the petitioner. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, by virtue of the amendment of the statutory prescription as per Ordinance 31/2010, which came into effect from 14.6.2010, the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 23.1.2011 is not correct or sustainable under any circumstances. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the materials on record, it is quite evident that Ext.P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent on 23.1.2011 is beyond the power and jurisdiction of the said respondent, by virtue of which the petitioner has been virtually disentitled from pursuing the statutory remedy by way of revision before the District Collector and also by way of appeal before the District Court. W.P (C) No. 6379 of 2011 2 5. In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted for being dealt with by the 4th respondent, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The matter shall be finalised by the 4th respondent, also taking note of the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333] as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 4th respondent for taking further steps. Necessary files now stated as pending before the 3rd respondent shall be transmitted to the 4th respondent forthwith for further steps in this regard. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge