IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24600 of 2011(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JINEESH, ARAIYUNNIPARAMP, THALAVADI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR). RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLA-692 038. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA-692 038. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-692 071. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASHREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 24600 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CASH MEMORANDUM DT.30.11.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.30.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.5.1.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6843/2011. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.10.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).24600/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a Goods Carriage bearing registration No.KL-05 Q 1935. On the allegation that the vehicle was used in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, (in short 'the Act'), proceedings were initiated and that resulted in Ext.P3 order of the first respondent confiscating the vehicle. 2. Petitioner thereafter filed a Revision and according to the respondents, during the pendency of the said Revision, without disclosing the said fact, petitioner filed W.P.(C).6843/2011 before this Court and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue remedy of revision under Section 23B of the Act. According to the respondents, before the judgment was rendered, the order on the Revision was passed and was communicated to the petitioner on 28.6.2011. Thereafter in the purported compliance of Ext.P5 judgment, the fact that the Revision was already disposed of, was communicated W.P.(C).24600/11 2 to the petitioner by Ext.P6 and it was there upon, the writ petition has been filed. 3. When the writ petition was taken up, in view of the assertion of the petitioner that the Revision was not disposed of in compliance with Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to file a statement disclosing the actual state of affairs. Accordingly, statement has been filed to the effect that the Revision was in fact disposed of and that the order was served on the petitioner on 28.6.2011. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner still reiterates that the order has not been served on the petitioner so far, now that according to the respondents Revision is already disposed of, the remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 23C of the Act, by way of an appeal to the District Court. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. On the production of a copy of this judgment, the third respondent will ensure that the copy of the order disposing of Revision filed under Section 23B of the Act is served on the W.P.(C).24600/11 3 petitioner forthwith. It is directed that within two weeks from today, it will be open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Court in terms of Section 23C of the Act in which event, the District Court will entertain the appeal and consider the same on merits. Needless to say that it will be open to the petitioner to seek interim custody of the vehicle by making an appropriate application along with the appeal. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs