IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21350 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VASUDEVAN, S/O.SANKARAN, 23/432, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DT.-679 586. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SRI.PRAMJI PAUL VAZHAPPILLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DT.-680 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DT.-679 001. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 016. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DT.-679 511. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DT.-680 019. GP SMT. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21350 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY DATED 17.6.2011 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE PASS ISSUED BY THE PORT CONSERVATOR DATED 17.6.2011 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MAHZAR PREPARED BY THE JUNIOR SUPERINTENDANT OF THALAPPILLY TALUK, DATED 17.6.2011 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESSES EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.7.2011 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).21350/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of a Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL 11 Z 6862. Proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 was initiated against the vehicle which culminated in Ext.P5 order of the fourth respondent. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the said order, Revision under Section 23B of the Act has been filed and the same is pending before the second respondent. If that be so, it is ordered that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent will expedite the disposal of the Revision, with notice to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs