IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23577 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.BASHEER, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ALI, PONNANDY HOUSE, KOTTATHARA P.O., VAITHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBALAKAD POLICE STATION, KUMBALAKAD P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 122. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MANANTHAVADY P.O., MANANTHAVADY WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23577 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 4.4.11 PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.5.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.7.11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.6.11 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C). 23577/2011 .......................................... Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the District Collector, rejecting the Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 23B of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2011, on the ground that the Revision filed by the petitioner was a belated one. The order itself show that the Revision was filed on 11.6.2011 against Ext.P3 order dated 24.5.2011. It is further stated that the Revision should be filed within 15 days and delay upto 15 days is condonable. 2. In my view, the order itself is contradictory. If the Revision is to be filed within 15 days and a delay of further 15 days is condonable, it is evident from the materials that the Revision has been filed on 11.6.2011 against the order dated 24.5.2011. Thus the Revision filed is even though beyond 15 days, will fall within the 15 days condonable limit of delay. In such a situation, Revision could not have been rejected as ordered in Ext.P4. Therefore, Ext.P4 will stand set aside. W.P.(C).23577/11 2 3. Third respondent will consider the Revision filed by the petitioner on merits and pass ordered thereon, as expeditiously as possible. It is directed that in the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to seek interim custody of the vehicle by filing an appropriate application before the third respondent in which event, same will be dealt with in accordance with the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333] Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs