Pappachan. Vs. the Circle Insepctor of Police. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....government pleader, reason for issuing ext.p6 is that ext.p2 order was issued by the district collector on 28-06-2010. it is submitted that it was without taking note of the fact that the act was amended with effect from 14-06-2010 conferring the power on the third respondent. it is stated that when the defect in jurisdiction was realised, the files were transferred to the third respondent and that it is therefore the third respondent has initiated steps for fresh hearing by issuing the impugned notice. 3. admittedly, on account of the amendment of the act, the second respondent has ceased to have any jurisdiction with effect from 14-06-2010. if that be so, ext.p2 order issued on 28-06-2010 was without jurisdiction. therefore, fresh steps initiated by the competent authority by issuing ext.p6 cannot be said to be illegal. in that view of the matter, i direct the third respondent to conclude the proceedings now initiated by ext.p6 with notice to the petitioner on an expeditious basis. 4. petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent who shall conclude the proceedings as directed above.

Judgment:

1. Petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing registration No.KL-03P-8428. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 resulting in Ext.P2 order of the District Collector. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to Ext.P2, the value of the vehicle as ordered was deposited. It is stated that in spite of the above, vehicle was not released and that now he has been issued Ext.P6 notice from the office of the third respondent, requiring him to appear for another hearing on the same issue. It is therefore he has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P6 and seeking a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle.

2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, reason for issuing Ext.P6 is that Ext.P2 order was issued by the District Collector on 28-06-2010. It is submitted that it was without taking note of the fact that the Act was amended with effect from 14-06-2010 conferring the power on the third respondent. It is stated that when the defect in jurisdiction was realised, the files were transferred to the third respondent and that it is therefore the third respondent has initiated steps for fresh hearing by issuing the impugned notice.

3. Admittedly, on account of the amendment of the Act, the second respondent has ceased to have any jurisdiction with effect from 14-06-2010. If that be so, Ext.P2 order issued on 28-06-2010 was without jurisdiction. Therefore, fresh steps initiated by the competent authority by issuing Ext.P6 cannot be said to be illegal. In that view of the matter, I direct the third respondent to conclude the proceedings now initiated by Ext.P6 with notice to the petitioner on an expeditious basis.

4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent who shall conclude the proceedings as directed above.