A vehicle (KL4T-7412) belonging to the revision petitioner was seized under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with full load of sand. Further proceedings went on as provided under the law, and the Sub Collector, Chengannur passed orders under Section 23A(4) of the Act. Under the said sub Section, the competent authority can pass orders confiscating the vehicle, or if the owner of the vehicle is willing to pay the amount assessed by the authority, the said amount can be received in lieu of confiscation, and the property can be released. Anyway, aggrieved by the said order the revision petitioner approached the District Collector, Alappuzha. What is provided under Section 23B of the Act, against the orders of the confiscating authority, is in fact a revision to the District Collector. However, it was received as an appeal by the District Collector, Alappuzha with No.DMC2-
16447/11. After hearing both sides the District Collector dismissed the said revision by order dated 3.9.2011.
2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector under Section 23B of the Act, the revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal before the Court of Session, Alappuzha as Crl.A No.458/2011. The said Criminal Appeal was entertained by the Court of Session, and the learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha disposed of the appeal by dismissal on 11.11.2013. The said order of dismissal is under challenge in this revision.
3. On a perusal of the case records, I find that the Criminal Appeal was in fact wrongly filed by the revision petitioner before the Court of Session. On dismissal of revision by the District Collector under Section 23B of the Act, his remedy is an appeal to the District Court under Section 23C of the Act. Instead of filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Court, Alappuzha, the revision petitioner wrongly filed a Criminal Appeal before the Court of Session, Alappuzha. It is quite unfortunate that such a Criminal Appeal was entertained by the Court of Session, and the learned Sessions Judge, even proceeded to hear and dispose of the said Criminal Appeal on merits, when the proper and competent authority is in fact the District Court.
4. A person, aggrieved by any order passed by the competent authority under Section 23A of the Act, whether it is a confiscation order or an order to make payment in lieu of confiscation should know what his remedy is, or where his remedy lies. In this case, instead of filing a proper Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the District Court, Alappuzha, the revision petitioner was wrongly advised to file Criminal Appeal before the Court of Session, Alappuzha. I find that this revision against such a wrong order by the wrong forum need not be entertained. Here is a case of wrong proceedings taken by the revision petitioner before the wrong forum. He will have to file a proper appeal before the District Court under Section 23C of the Act. Without prejudice to his right to file such an appeal, of course subject to the question of limitation, this revision petition can be dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files, of course without prejudice to the right of the revision petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy under Section 23C of the Act, subject to the question of limitation.
ab P.UBAID, JUDGE