IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36989 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ANEESH, S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 27 YEARS, 6/32 KATOORAN HOUSE, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHADEVI FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36936 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 36936 of 2008 & 36989of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P1, an order passed by the second respondent, exercising his power under Rule 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Although constitutional validity of the Act itself is raised, that issue is covered against the petitioner, in view of the judgment of this court in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009(1) K.L.T. 77]. However, a reading of Exhibit P1 shows that, the second respondent has placed total reliance on the Mahzar prepared at the time of seizure. Apart from that there has not been any consideration of the facts which are relevant to the issue arising in these matters. In the absence of such consideration in this case, Exhibit P1 order in these cases is liable to be set aside and I do so. Accordingly, quashing Exhibit P1, I direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioners and pass fresh orders. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm