IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37019 of 2008(F) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAHESH MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, KARIMKUTTIPURAM, NELLIMATTOM P.O., KAVALANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 37019 OF 2008 F -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had approached this Court earlier and Ext.P9 is the Judgment in the Writ Appeal. Therein, it is ordered as follows: “We find no reason to entertain this Writ Appeal. We make it clear that the appellant would deposit half the amount demanded in Ext.P10 within two months from today. Government would consider the question whether the prayer for exemption be favourably considered if a representation is submitted. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the authorities can take revenue recovery proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law.” 2. The issue relates to the legality of re-auctioning the teak poles at the risk and cost of the petitioner. According to petitioner, petitioner has complied with the direction and WPC.37019/08 F 2 deposited half the amount and thereafter he filed Ext.P11 representation also. But, he is served with Ext.P12 revenue recovery notice. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that it is true that the petitioner has deposited fifty per cent of the amount as directed in Ext.P9 Judgment. But, it is stated that the petitioner did not file Ext.P11 representation. But, it is further admitted that the petitioner had filed a representation before the Minister which came to be forwarded to the Secretary to the Government, Forest Department and therein, a decision has been taken and the said decision will be communicated to the petitioner. In the light of this submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 will be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the decision taken by the Government to the petitioner, and any further steps thereafter will depend upon the challenge of the petitioner, if he is so advised, to the decision which has been WPC.37019/08 F 3 taken as stated by the learned Government Pleader. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioner. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge