IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31590 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRAMOD.K.M, S/O.MANIKANDAN, AGED 21 YEARS,KALIKULANGARA THEKETHIL HOUSE, THALASSERY VILLAGE & PO,ARANGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DT.(OWNER OF KL-11-S-1266). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/RDO, OFFICE OF RDO,OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD 679 101. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHALISSERY- POLICE STATION,CHALISSERY PO,PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31590 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palakkad under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 is under challenge in this writ petition. Under the provisions of the said Act as amended, a revision petition lies to the District Collector and an appeal therefrom to the District Court. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has two alternate remedies open to him to canvass the correctness of Ext.P3 order, I am of the opinion that the main relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. In prayer No.2 petitioner has sought interim custody of the vehicle pending disposal of Ext.P4 revision petition and in prayer No.3 petitioner has sought a direction to the District Collector to take up and dispose of Ext.P4 revision petition within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. Ext.P4 revision petition is dated 4.10.2010, ten days before this writ petition was filed. It cannot therefore be said that there has been undue delay in disposing of Ext.P4 revision petition. I therefore find no ground to grant the third relief prayed by the petitioner. As regards WPC No.31590/2010 2 prayer No.2 for interim custody, it is for the petitioner to move the revisional authority and the revisional authority to consider whether such interim custody should be granted. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.31590/2010 3