IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13766 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.DEEPAK, S/O V.P.RAVEENDRANATHAN, 'SRUTHI', VIJAYAKKURISSI POST, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ASISH K.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD TALUK. 3. THE KUMARMPUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.P373, MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. MURAFEEDHARAN, S/O KESAVAN, KAMBAMKOTTIL, HOUSE, NO.3/152, PAYYANEDAM P.O., PIN-678583, PAYYANEDAM DESOM, PAYYANEDAM VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 5. K.J.GEORGE, KUDILIL HOUSE, CHETTIKKAD P.O., PALLIKKUNNU, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD. ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the certificate of confirmation of sale issued by the 2nd respondent dated 2.8.2008. Ext.P2. True copy of the registered sale Certificate No.1/5454/08 dt.4.8.2008 executed by 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner registered before the Sub Registry Office, Mannarkkad. Ext.P3. True copy of the Sale Deed No.1222/09 dated 11.02.2009 of the Mannerkkad Sub Registry. Ext.P4. True copy of the notice dated 23.3.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P5. True copy of the order dated 10.22009 issued by the Ist respondent. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.13766 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5. The 5th respondent had mortgaged certain properties and availed of loans from the 3rd respondent Society. The Bank initiated recovery proceedings. Following the award in ARC.No.104/04, which was passed on 12.7.2004, execution petition was filed and it would appear that the petitioner herein was the successful bidder in the auction that was held by the Sale Officer. According to him, sale was confirmed on 2.8.2008 and Ext.P1 is the sale certificate. It is also stated by the petitioner that on 11.2.2009, by Ext.P3 he has alienated the property in favour of the 4th respondent. Subsequent to all this, he received Ext.P5 dated 10.2.2009, issued by the first respondent setting aside the sale in his favour, on an appeal filed by the 5th respondent, the defaulter. It is WP(c).No.13766/09 2 challenged Ext.P5 order that this writ petition is filed. 2. In this writ petition, although several contentions have been raised by the petitioner regarding the invalidity of Ext.P5 order and also by the 5th respondent regarding the invalidity of th sale in favour of the petitioner, I do not think that this court should, at this stage, need venture into those controversial issues. This is for the reason that, admittedly, Ext.P5 order was passed by the first respondent, without issuing notice or hearing to the petitioner, in whose favour the sale was confirmed as per Ext.P1 order. This could not have been done and for the said reason I am inclined to set aside Ext.P5. 3. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside. The first respondent shall reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and pass fresh orders, as expeditiously as possible, on the production of a copy of the judgment. It is clarified that the contentions raised by the parties are left open and it is entirely for the Government to decide the question within 3 months. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.13766/09 3