IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27781 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH KUMAR.K, AGED YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHA PANICKER, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KODAKKAL P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 101. 3. THE SECRETARY, THIRUNAVAYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUNAVAYA PO, MALAPPURAM-676 505. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P. NARAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27781 OF 2010(W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-55 A 1035 and on the allegation that the vehicle was involved in the unauthorized transportation of river sand, proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of River Sand Act which resulted in Ext.P4 order of confiscation. That order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.30056/2007. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, setting aside Ext.P4 order on the ground that the contentions urged by the petitioner were not considered. Petitioner has sworn to an affidavit stating that the judgment was produced before the first respondent. It is stated that in spite of the judgment, the matter has not been reconsidered but however he was issued Ext.P6 calling upon him to remit the amount due under Ext.P4 order which has already stated to be set aside in the previous proceedings. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. WPC.No. 27781/2010 :2 : 2. In view of the positive assertion made by the petitioner in the affidavit dated 9th September, 2010 filed by him, reiterating that the judgment was produced before the first respondent and that fresh order in this matter has not been passed, Ext.P6 calling upon the petitioner to remit the amount cannot be sustained. Therefore I quash Ext.P6 and direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned who is the authority in terms of the Act to hear the petitioner and pass orders in respect of the proceedings against the vehicle referred to above. This shall be done on the production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/