IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 1169 of 2010(H) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36477/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ DILEEP, S/O. DIVAKARAN, PANAMBALIL PADEETTATHIL, MUTTOM.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKKARA, PIN - 690 502. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, (RDO), CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 121. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, 688 001. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIYAD POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA, PIN - 690 502. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.1169/2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.36477/2010(H) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 O R D E R The writ petition filed by the Review Petitioner, complaining of illegal seizure of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-04N- 6566 was disposed of by judgment dated 17th December, 2010, recording the submission of the Government Pleader that on behalf of the District Collector, ADM heard the petitioner and that final order will be issued soon. 2. In this review petition, petitioner submits that the statement that “ADM heard the petitioner” was incorrect and on the other hand he was heard by a clerk by name Mr.Murali. In view of the above, this court directed the respondents in the review petition to file an affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit has been filed stating that hearing was held by the ADM and that Mr. Murali, the clerk mentioned above has only recorded the statement of the petitioner. However, the statements of the petitioner copy of which is produced along with I.A.No.74/2011, which has been recorded by Mr. Murali, does not even carry the initials of the ADM, to infer that the statement was recorded at RP.No.1169 /2010 :2 : least in the presence of the ADM. 3. In that view I am inclined to think that there is nothing produced by the respondents herein, to substantiate their contention that it was the ADM who conducted the hearing. Therefore, I am satisfied that the judgment has been rendered acting upon the erroneous submission and for that reason I review and recall the judgment. Review Petition is allowed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/