IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28381 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAGANATHA PRASAD, S/O.SRI.C.SAHADEVAN, C.S.SADANAM, T.P.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.RAJAN SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SMT.V.P.GEETHA KUMARY SMT.SHIBI. K.P. SRI.K.R.RANJITH SRI.A.N.PREMLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. K.VENUGOPAL, ARACKAL, SREE GOKULAM, THIRUVATHUKKAL, KOTTAYAM WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM. 686 003. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.S.MANU FOR R3 SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.28381 of 2010-W ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 notice of sale published by the 3rd respondent. Through Ext.P4 a 'Tata Indigo' Car bearing No.KL5- S-3032 was put to public auction on 15.9.2010. The sale was proclaimed pursuant to revenue recovery steps initiated against the petitioner for realising amounts due under an order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kottayam, in O.P.No.1055 of 1998, which got merged with the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in appeal No.357 of 2008. From Ext.P3 order of the State Commission, it is revealed that the petitioner was held liable for payment of a sum of Rs.1,53,465/- with interest due thereon @ 6% p.a from 31.4.1998 onwards till the date of payment. There is a specific direction in Ext.P3 to make payment of the said amount within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent pointed out that inspite of the fact that Ext.P3 order was issued on W.P(C) No.28381 of 2010-W 2 19.5.2010, the petitioner failed to make payment of the amount and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has issued revenue recovery proceedings on the basis of execution petition filed by the 2nd respondent. 3. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 before the third respondent. Objections were seen raised against the proclamation on the ground that estimated value of the vehicle was not published. The petitioner also make allegation regarding non keeping of the vehicle in a covered parking area, pending finalisation of the proceedings. Through Ext.P5, the third respondent was requested to make fresh proclamation showing estimated value (upset price) at the rate of Rs.3.75 lakhs, before proceedings with sale of the property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisting that with respect to sale proceedings of movable properties, the authority shall fix the upset price and shall duly publish the amount in the sale notice. It is also contended that the authority in such cases are bound to keep the movables in proper safe custody to ensure that value of such attached articles are not being deteriorated. W.P(C) No.28381 of 2010-W 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale proclaimed under Ext.P4 has not been materialised on 15.9.2010. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be closed directing the third respondent to take note of the objections raised in Ext.P5, while making fresh proclamation for sale of the Car. 6. It is also made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, if he is aggrieved by sale if any conducted without complying with the mandatory requirements under law. The writ petition is disposed with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab