IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1891 of 2010() --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.6209/1997 Dated 20/08/2009 ) .................... APPELLANT/3RD PETITIONER ---------------------------- BABY P.O., PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BOATS, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PUTHENVELIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-683504. 5. S.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, GOVINDAVILASOM, MILLS ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. K. MEERA R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN R5 BY SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.NO.1891 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 16th December, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. One of the petitioners, who lost the case before the learned Single Judge is before us. 2. The appellant along with his siblings filed O.P. No..6209 of 1997 questioning the action of the 2nd and 4th respondents in bringing their property for sale in the proceedings initiated for recovery of money said to be due from the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein entered into an agreement with Puthenvelikkara Grama Panchayat in connection with ferry at 'Puthenvelikkara Thelamthuruthu Manjaly ferry' and some amounts became due to the Panchayat. When the amount due to the Panchayat became overdue, the boat belonging to the family of the appellant was sold in auction, which came to be purchased by the fifth respondent, who in turn sold the same in favour of one Krishnan Nair . It is seen that a 'declaration suit' is pending before Civil Court at the instance of the appellant and his family questioning the quantum of amount due by Grama W.A.NO.1891 OF 2010 2 Panchayat. In that view of the matter, whether the property could have been brought for sale or not, need not be considered in this proceedings. The fact remains that a recovery proceedings came to be initiated by the Panchayat in question and the property came to be purchased by the fifth respondent. Ultimately, the decision in the civil suit would decide whether the respondents could have brought the property for public auction, which came to be purchased by the fifth respondent as the highest bidder. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for further consideration. We need not consider either the illegality or irregularity of Ext. P1 order. However, we make it clear that none of the observations would persuade the civil court to decide the matter one way or other. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk