IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18301 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. NAZEER, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS, PUTHAN PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, VAVANNUR POST, NAGLASSERI, PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. NOUSHAD. E.V, S/O.ABOOBACKER, ILLATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, SOUTH VAVANOOR POST, PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, SRI.R.SREEHARI. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM, PIN- 679 101. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, PIN-679 101. 4. TRITHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRITHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-679 534. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 18301 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL 2R 2673. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SAND PASS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 08/12/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J.213/2011 DATED 09/02/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18301 OF 2011 (K) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T 2nd petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-2R 2673 and the first petitioner is said to be its driver. Proceedings were initiated against the vehicle for the alleged violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and it was the defence of the petitioners that the transportation was on the strength of a valid pass issued by the 4th respondent. The contentions were rejected and Ext.P3 order was passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, first petitioner has filed Ext.P4 revision before the 1st respondent and the said application is pending. In this writ petition, the grievance is mainly regarding the delay in the disposal of the revision. 2. Taking note of the above, I direct that the 1st respondent will expedite disposal of Ext.P4 revision with notice to the revision petitioner, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks. It is made clear that if the petitioners so WPC No. 18301/11 :2 : desire, it will be open to the petitioners to make available the presence of the 4th respondent also as and when the revision is heard by the 1st respondent. 3. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp