IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 946 of 2009(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22748/2008 Dated 28/07/2009 CMP.2910/2008 of J.M.F.C.,PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- E.M.JOYKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT EDAYAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, AITHALA MURIYIL,PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------ FOREST RANGE OFFICER,KALADY. BY GOVT.PLEADER P.M.POULOSE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.NO.946 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th October 2009 O R D E R W.P.C.22748/2008 was allowed by this court after hearing the Government Pleader on merits on 28/7/2009 and Ext.P2 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavur granting interim custody of the vehicle in Crl.M.P.2910/2008 was set aside. This petition is filed to review the said judgment contending that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was not present in court when the writ petition was heard as he ceased to practice in the High Court and in such circumstances, the writ petition is to be heard. 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that petition is filed beyond the period of limitation and no separate petition to condone the delay is filed and for that reason alone the petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that apart from the judgment in W.P.C.22748/2008, orders in confiscation proceedings were passed and the vehicle was already confiscated and in such circumstances, review petition is only to be dismissed as interim RP 946/09 2 custody cannot be granted. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal before the District court, Ernakulam as C.M.A.82/2009 challenging the order for confiscation and it is pending. 4. Order set aside by this court in the writ petition is an order passed by the Magistrate in a petition filed under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure granting interim custody of the vehicle. In view of the confiscation order passed by the authorised officer, I find no necessity to entertain the review petition as the vehicle is confiscated interim custody cannot be granted. Petitioner has already preferred statutory appeal against the order of confiscation. The entire question is to be decided by the District court in the statutory appeal. I find no apparent error or other reason to review the judgment. Petition is dismissed with liberty to raise all contentions in the statutory appeal. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.