IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 WA.No. 562 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12535/2011 Dated 26/04/2011 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONER ------------------------ BIJU JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, PUTHUKULANGARA, AGALI, MANNARKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPPALAM-679101. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUR-678581. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AGALI POLICE STATION, AGALI-678581. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI M P SREE KRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No.562 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic J., The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam and by the impugned judgment the writ petition was dismissed. The reason stated by the learned Judge is that under Section 23B of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001, the appellant has a remedy of revision and that therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. Challenging the judgment dismissing the Writ petition, this appeal is filed. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the revision is to be filed within fifteen days from the date of the order and that the order dated 22.3.2011 was received only on0 23.4.2011. It is stated that by the time order was received, fifteen days' period had already expired, and therefore, the appellant has lost the opportunity to file revision and hence, the W.A. No.562 of 2011 :2: Writ Petition ought to have been entertained. 3. Having considered the submission, we confess our inability to accept the said contention for the reason that the date of the order occurring in Sec.23B of the above Act is to be understood as the date of the knowledge of the order. 3. We therefore do not find any error in the judgment. Accordingly the Writ Appeal is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/