IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20792 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NOUSHAD K, S/O.KHADAR, AGED 28 YEARS, KADAPRATHKATH-HOUSE,EASWARAMANGALAM P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF KL-46/4704) BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM-POLICE STATION, KUTTIPPURAM P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20792 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 29.03.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2010 IN W.P.(C) 11696/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2010 IN P5-17434/10 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)18780/2010 DATED 8.12.2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST WITNESS DTD. 19.4.2011. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND WITNESS DTD.,19.4.2011 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.M.6/67018/2010 DTD.45.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPTY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CON.CASE (C)No. 609/2011 DTD.. 05.07.2011 EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VEHICLE KL.46/4704 /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 20792 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 29th July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The vehicle bearing No.KL. 46/4704 belonging to the petitioner was taken into custody for alleged offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It appears that the petitioner is before this Court in a second or third round of litigation. Earlier, the matter was caused to be considered by this Court on challenging Ext. P3 order of the District Collector dated 25.05.201, which culminated in Ext. P4 judgment dated 8.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No. 18780 of 2010, whereby the impugned order was set aside and the matter was directed to be re-considered in the manner as specified;simultaneously, giving direction for interim custody of the vehicle, taking note of the full Bench decision in Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 333). It was accordingly W.P.(C) No. 20792 OF 2011 2 that the matter was considered by the first respondent/District Collector, who passed Ext. P7 order dated 04.05.2011, turning down the claim of the petitioner. However, contending that Ext.P7 order was not in conformity with Ext. P4 judgment, the petitioner filed COC No. 609 of 2011, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 15.07.2011 holding that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved of Ext.P7 order, the remedy of the petitioner was to have it challenged by filing appropriate proceedings. The petitioner contends that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court again in the said circumstance. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner had sought for an order to be given by this Court directing the District Collector to have the matter re-considered after setting aside the earlier order, which led to Ext. P4 judgment and in turn Ext. P7 order. But, by this time, the statute actually had got amended with effect from 14.06.2010, whereby the original authority to consider the issue was vested W.P.(C) No. 20792 OF 2011 3 with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, while the District Collector was designated as the 'Revisional authority'. The amended statute also provided a further remedy to the aggrieved person to challenge the order of the Revisional Authority by approaching the District Court by way of appeal. Even though the provisions stood amended as above, the said provision, unfortunately, was omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court when Ext. P4 judgment was passed. However, the original order passed by the District Collector was prior to the amendment (Ext.P3 order dated 25.05.2010) and it was taking note of the submission made by the petitioner to have the matter re-considered, that appropriate directions were given as per Ext. P4 to have the proceedings finalised by the District Collector. Pursuant to the said direction given by this Court, the first respondent passed Ext. P7. Ext.P4 judgment has become final, as no grievance was raised from the part of the petitioner on any count. The question to be considered by this Court is whether correctness and sustainability of Ext. P7 should be looked into in this petition. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, as on W.P.(C) No. 20792 OF 2011 4 date, against an order passed by the District Collector, the aggrieved party is at liberty to approach the District Court by filing an appeal. By virtue of the amendment, the power of the District Collector is not taken away, but for making him the Revisional Authority, vesting with the power to examine the justifiability of the order passed by the Original authority ( i.e., the lower authority). In other words, it is not a question of total lack of power or incompetence on the part of the District Collector, who is very much having the power and authority to have the issue considered at appropriate level; while providing a three-tier system of adjudication; the first one by the original authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, the second one by the District Collector by way of Revision and the third one by the District Court, in the course of Appeal. 5. In the above circumstance, this Court does not find it necessary to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court and the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy by way of appeal against Ext. P7 order passed by the District Collector by approaching the District Court, if he so advised. The petitioner is W.P.(C) No. 20792 OF 2011 5 granted two weeks' time to prefer the appeal as aforesaid. It is open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the District Court in respect of all his claims, which shall be dealt with in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk