IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14717 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MEENA ASHOKAN, CHARANGATTU HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 4. C.S.SWAMINATHAN, CHALLIYIL, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHAL. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).14717/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/03/07 IN W.P.NO.8220 OF 2007. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/03/07 OF THE ORDER DATED 17/03/07 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/12/07 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY RS/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 14717 OF 2008 B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that the matter arises from revenue recovery proceedings pertaining to the conduct of an arrack shop during the abkari year 1993-94. Petitioner submits that when a particular item of property was proposed to be sold, she submitted a proposal suggesting sale of an alternate property. That was rejected by Ext. P2. Against Ext. P2 petitioner filed Ext. P3 revision before the 1st respondent and in the meantime the sale was completed and the 4th respondent was the successful bidder. However, in the revision, on an application filed by the petitioner for stay, the 1st respondent passed Ext. P4 order staying confirmation of sale. While the matters stood thus, petitioner came to know that orders on the revision filed by the petitioner were passed and that further action was being continued although copy of the order was not served on her. Thereupon, this writ petition was filed and this Court passed an order dated 16.5.2008 staying confirmation of the W.P.(C) No. 14717 OF 2008 -2- sale in favour of the 4th respondent. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been served a copy of the order on 19.5.2008 and therefore she wants to pursue further remedies that are available. This she may do so and in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the matter as above, I direct that the interim order passed by this Court on 16.5.2008 will remain in force for a period of 3 weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-