IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 390 of 2011(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14035/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MONOMOHAN,S/O.MANI,NADUVELIKUNNIL AMBALLOORE,MANAKUMMAM VILLAGE,KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.C.G.RAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... R.P.390/2011 in W.P.(C).14035/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 ORDER This Review Petition has been filed by the writ petitioner stating that the direction given as per the judgment passed already, is to consider the claim in respect of the “interim custody” of the vehicle in the light of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 333); while the relief actually sought for was to have the proceedings completed, passing final orders in the adjudication proceedings. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is an 'error apparent on the face of record', which is liable to be rectified, invoking the power of review. However, the petitioner has shown only the District Collector, Kottayam, as the sole respondent, to whom a direction is sought to be given to finalize the proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Obviously, the seizure was effected on 19.8.2009 and the interim custody was ordered as per Ext.P6 dated 1.10.2009. Thereafter, the things took a different turn and R.P.390/11 2 the statute was amended as per ordinance No.38/2010 with effect from 14.6.2010, whereby, the competent authority to consider the matter is the RDO and the District Collector (the respondent herein) turned to be the revisional authority. As such, no direction can be given to the respondent to pass final orders in the proceedings, he being the 'revisional authority' as on date. 3. In the above circumstances, the respondent is directed to transmit all the records if the matter is still pending, to the competent authority forthwith; who shall consider and finalize the same in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this order, along with the entire proceedings before the respondent for taking further steps. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs