IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23253 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRABHAKARAN K.S., S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.VARAVATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (RC OWNER OF KL-08-C/4120). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/RDO, OFFICE OF THE RDO, THRISSUR -686001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 686001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR -3. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23253 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.11.10 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN B3-18972/10 DATED 12.8.11 RECEIVED ON 19.8.11 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 22.8.11 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION IN REVISION PETITION DATED 22.8.11 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .............................................. W.P.(C).23253/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of a Mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-08-C/4120. Proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, were initiated culminating in Ext.P2 order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Prior to the said order, vehicle was entrusted to the petitioner on interim custody. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P2 order, petitioner filed Ext.P3 Revision Petition before the third respondent invoking Section 23 of the Act. While the Revision is pending, it is alleged that the second respondent has taken steps to re-possess the vehicle on the strength of Ext.P2. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. From the above submission, it is clear that the statutory revision filed is pending before the third respondent and the second respondent is taking steps to implement Ext.P2 order in the meanwhile. Having regard to the pendency of the statutory revision, I feel that the steps allegedly taken by the second respondent are premature. W.P.(C).23253/11 2 3. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- Third respondent shall dispose of the Revision Petition with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Until orders are passed as above, petitioner will be permitted to continue custody of the vehicle, on condition that the Bank guarantee executed and the bond furnished, shall be kept alive. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs