IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 463 of 2011(w) ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14788/2011 Dated 01/06/2011 ) .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) -------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHANGANNUR-688 121. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 689 505. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA-690 101. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. S. DILIP RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------ P.V.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.VIJAYAN K., R/A PUNNCHUVATTIL HOUSE, KALLUMMEL.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 110. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. R.P.No. 463 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd August, 2011 O R D E R Review is sought for by the State pointing out that the judgment dated 01.06.2011 in W.P.(C)No. 14788 of 2011, (directing the third respondent to produce the vehicle bearing No. KL.31B/3133 before the concerned Court), happened to be passed, as if the proceedings were initiated under the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, whereas the proceedings actually have been taken under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, where power is of course vested with the District Collector, to confiscate the vehicle. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court alleging contempt . When the above defect was pointed out, the Contempt of Court case was closed. Thereafter, the 2 respondent/writ petitioner filed another writ petition and appropriate directions have been given in the said writ petition to safeguard the interest of the writ petitioner. In the above circumstance, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the Review Petition is not opposed and it can be allowed. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is an error apparent on the face of the records and accordingly, the direction given as per the judgment dated 01.06.2011 in W.P.(C) 14788 of 2011 is recalled and it is modified to the effect that the proceedings have to be finalised by the District Collector and that the writ petitioner is free to approach the District Collector in this regard. In view of subsequent events, as referred to above, no further orders are necessary in this Review Petition. Review Petition is allowed to the said extent. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk