IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8253 of 2010(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------- MRS.V.K.RADHAMANI AMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. K.A.NARAYANA PILLAI, KALIKURUMBATHARAYIL HOUSE, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'BHADRADHA', MUSEUM ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MAIN BRANCH OFFICE, PADMA JUNCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R.), KSFE LTD., ERNAKULAM. 4. SINDHU UNNIKRISHNAN, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, NOW RESIDING AT DOOR NO.32/1757B, NETAJI ROAD, COCHIN-24. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 8253 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents for realisation of the amount stated as due on the chitty transaction, invoking the power and procedure under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 12.03.2010, urgent notice on admission was ordered, simultaneously making it clear that, the confirmation of sale would be subject to further orders to be obtained from this Court, on the condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) on or before 15.03.2010 and a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) on or before 10.04.2010. It is conceded from the part of the petitioner that the condition has not been satisfied. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, because of the pendency of the proceedings, before this Court, the sale was not conducted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner might be permitted to challenge the correctness and sustainability of the proceedings including the sale by resorting to such other appropriate remedy as provided under the statute. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner as aforesaid. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc