IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 101 of 2009 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.35835/2004 DATED 23/07/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. T.U.VARKEY, THURACKAL HOUSE, KALAYANTHANI P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. G.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KAIKKATHADATHIL, PANNIAMATTOM P.O. 3. RETNAMMA, W/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KAIKKATHADATHIL, PANNIAMATTOM P.O. 4. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KAIKKATHADATHIL, PANNIAMATTOM P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.), SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI. W.A. NO. 101/2009: 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 5. T.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.THENAMMAKKAL RUBBERS, ARIKKUZHA P.O. THODUPUZHA. 6. THE CANARA BANK, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. MEERA, R6 BY ADV. SRI. P. GOPINATHA MENON, SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. NO. 101/2009: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 32/2009 IN W.A. NO. 101/2008 DISMISSED SD/- J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, 14/01/2009. SD/- V. GIRI, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & V. Giri, J. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 101 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 Judgment Koshy,Ag.C.J. Fifth respondent availed a loan from the sixth respondent bank. On account of default, the bank decided to recover the arrears by resorting to revenue recover proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount due to the bank was Rs.5,57,908/- with interest thereon from the date of recommendation of revenue recovery proceedings. It is submitted by the counsel for the bank that at the time when loan was taken, value of the property was more than Rupees Eleven lakhs. The property was notified for sale on 16.1.2002 with upset price. First petitioner purchased property in the auction for Rs.1,07,500/-. Thereafter, he immediately sold the property to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in bits. The bank approached the court saying that the sale was not conducted properly. Even 20% of the debt was not recovered. Various other grounds including proper publication of notice was not given etc. were also mentioned. A single Bench of W.A. No.101/2009 2 this court directed the Government to pass orders after hearing the parties. Following is the operative part of Ext.P9 judgment: “2. W.P. is therefore disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the objection raised by the petitioner against confirmation of sale, issue notice to the revenue authorities and the purchaser and take a decision. There shall be a direction to the Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue to instruct all revenue authorities to sell landed properties or mortgaged properties in recovery proceedings only after issuing notice of sale proceedings to the beneficiary organisation whether it be the bank, or financial institution, so that they have a right to participate in auction and ensure that the property sold fetches a proper price. The first respondent will pass orders within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.” Ext.P9 has become final and binding on the parties. It is no more open to the parties to contend that Government has no jurisdiction to pass final order. After issuing notice to the parties, Ext.P13 order was passed by the Government. That was challenged contending that reasonable opportunity of hearing as directed in Ext.P9 was not granted. 2. The learned Judge considered the matter on merit and dismissed the writ petition. Main contention raised before us was that there was a direction in Ext.P9 judgment to hear the parties. Date of hearing was on 1.6.2004. It is submitted that notice for hearing was received only thereafter on 2.6.2004. According to the W.A. No.101/2009 3 petitioner, postal cover acknowledgment shows the postal stamp of 1.6.2004. The parties are at Thodupuzha. They were not able to attend the hearing in view of the delayed receipt of notice and they were not heard and orders passed. Reasonable opportunity of hearing was denied. In view of the binding nature of Ext.P9 judgment, reasonable notice of hearing ought to have been given. Hence, we set aside Ext.P13 order and we direct the first respondent Government to issue notice and hear the parties. At least a week's notice should be given for hearing and after giving an opportunity of hearing, fresh orders shall be passed untrammelled by Ext.P13 and impugned judgment. Since we have set aside Ext.P13 only because of violation of principles of natural justice in so far as no effective hearing was granted, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. The writ appeal is disposed of. J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice V. Giri Judge vaa W.A. No.101/2009 4 W.A. No.101/2009 5 J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. AND P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J. ------------------------------------- W.A.No. /2006 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:14th January, 2009