IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33431 of 2009(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MR.JOSE TOME, KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, TOMY THOMAS, KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.V.C.JAMES MR.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE R.D.O. KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR KANJIRAPPALLY. 4. GEORGE THOMAS, SOURIAMKUZHY HOUSE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CIDA RUBBERS, KOOVAPPILLY, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.33431 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is an auction purchaser participated in the sale conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Sale was conducted with respect to property belonging to the 4th respondent, who defaulted payment of Sales Tax and Rubber Cess. When the 3rd respondent forwarded the matter to the 2nd respondent, for confirmation of the sale, the 4th respondent filed a petition before the 2nd respondent. Considering the matter the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P1 order setting aside the sale for the reasons elaborately mentioned therein. Consequent to Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P2 proceedings through which the security deposit furnished by the petitioner was returned. 2. According to the petitioner the sale was set aside in a most irregular manner. It is contended that the 2nd respondent is not the competent authority vested with powers to set aside the sale, on the basis of an application of the defaulter. It is also contended that the application to set aside the sale was filed by the 4th respondent without remitting the pre-requisite amount as W.P.(C).33431/09-Y 2 per the provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 3. However, it is noticed that under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act a statutory remedy by way of revision is provided against Ext.P1 order, if the petitioner is aggrieved. Therefore I am of the opinion that without exhausting the statutory remedy available, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in this regard cannot be entertained. 4. Having confronted with the above position the petitioner conceded that he will file statutory revision against Ext.P1 order. Therefore the writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty of the petitioner to approach the statutory revisional authority. If any such revision petition is filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from today, the same shall be considered by the competent authority as a petition filed within the time limit prescribed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb