Disposed

Rahul v. District Collector

Kerala HC4 Jan 2012WP(C)/190/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions concerning the delay in disposing of revision petitions filed against orders under the Kerala Protection of River Sands Act. The court directed the District Collector to consider and pass orders on the revision petitions within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent-District Collector to consider and pass orders in the revision petitions as expeditiously as possible within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Rahul Vs District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/14TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 190 of 2012 (W)

¶6

=======================

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

===========

¶9

RAHUL S/O. GKOPALAN KANAKKAPALLIYALIL HOUSE POST KOODALLUR ANAKKAR, KUMBIDI OTTAPALAM TALUK

¶10

BY ADVS. SMT.T D RALAKSHMI SRI.R. SREEHARI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

=============

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD-678 001

¶14

2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OTTAPALAM 679 101

¶15

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TRITHALA POLICE STATION TRITHALA 679 534

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2012, ALONGWITH WPC NO.191 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

STK

¶19

WPC.No. 190/2012

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL 7AB 5434.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE CONFISCATION ORDER DATED 7-6-2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

STK

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶30

W.P(C) Nos. 190 & 191 of 2012

¶31

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4^th day of January, 2012.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioners in these two writ petitions are persons who have been visited with orders under the Kerala Protection of River Sands and Regulation of Sand Act, 2001 on findings of illegal transportation of river sand. Against the original order, the petitioners have filed Ext.P3 revision petitions before the District Collector, Palakkad. The petitioners' grievance is that the revision petitions are not being disposed of expeditiously.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader submits that the revisions have been filed belatedly even beyond the period for which the revisional authority can condone the delay. This is disputed by the petitioners.

¶35

Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that the question of limitation itself has to be considered by the revisional authority on the basis of the dates of receipts of order etc.

¶36

In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-District Collector, Palakkad to consider and pass orders in the revision petitions filed by the petitioners, which are Ext.P3 in both the writ petitions, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶38

Tds/

Rahul v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Anita Jacob Vs Union of India

Smt.Mary Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Ms.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs Reg.P.F.Fund Commissioner,Ktm

Devi.P Vs State of Kerala

Sudhi.v.S. @ Sruthimon Vs District Collector