IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 381 of 2008(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7453/2008 Dated 04/03/2008 .................................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ 7TH RESPONDENT IN WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------- DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDARY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.M.V. SABU RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 AND 8TH RESPONDENT IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SINU M. GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, MEENKUZHICKAL HOUSE, OLIYAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CHAIRMAN, KAKKOOR KALAVAYAL - KARSHIKAMELA - 08, KAKKOOR. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OF FOREST, GOVT. OF INDIAN NEW DELHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (AHF) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RP NO.381/2008 =: 2 := 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 7. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUMARADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ASST. SG, SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR ADV. SRI. C.S. DIAS, ADV. SRI.P. GOPAKUMARAN NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No. 381 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) No. 7453 OF 2008 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st March, 2008 O R D E R This Review Petition has been filed mainly contending that the Animal Husbandry Officer who was directed to consider the matter, is incompetent to pass orders. Now it is the conceded position that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is the officer competent to pass orders. In view of this and also in view of the fact that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is already seized of the matter this review petition is disposed of modifying the last paragraph of the judgment that it will be the Sub Divisional Magistrate who shall consider the matter. 2. In so far as the other contention that the petitioner had not made available the judgment of the Madras High Court for complying with the order is concerned, now that the learned Govt. Pleader submits that they have obtained a copy of the judgment, further consideration of this contention is not called for. Review Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-