IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3080 of 2007(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ZAKIR HUSSAIN, S/O.MOHAMMED,AGED 40 YEARS, KATTAMPALLI, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, CHEMPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHEMPU, VAIKOM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,S.C, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3080/2007-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/11/2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY NO. G3/1155/03 DTD. 26/12/2006, ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 3080 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the successful bidder for the right to collect river sand from Muvattupuzha river, for seven months during 1997-98 for an amount of ` 2,24,000/-, pursuant to an auction conducted by the 1st respondent panchayat. According to the petitioner, in view of the delay in allotting the kadavu by the 1st respondent, the petitioner could not collect and sell sand in terms of the auction for quite some time. Therefore, the petitioner requested for reduction in payment of the bid amount. But no orders were passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner paid some amounts. Now, by Ext.P2, proceedings have been initiated for sale of the petitioner's property for recovery of the balance amount of ` 1,84,930/-. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “a) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or direction to quash Exhibit P2. b) To issue a writ in the nature of prohibition forbearing the 2nd respondent from selling the properties specified in Exhibit P2 under due process of law; c) To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to receive the balance amount due to the 1st respondent in instalments. 2. This Court has passed following an interim order on 25.1.2007, which reads thus: w.p.c.3080/07 2 “Not admitted. Issue urgent notice on admission by speed post to R1. G.P. takes notice for R2. Post after R1 is served with notice. In the meanwhile all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 will stand stayed on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the demand within three weeks from today.” 3. Insofar as the petitioner now only seeks facility to pay off the balance amount in instalments, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay off the balance amount in five equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2011, if not already paid. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, coercive proceedings for recovery of the amount shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge