IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11555 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SAJITH SOMAN,S.N.M.,SADANAM, ULLALA THALAYAZHAM BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE UDAYANAPURAM P.O. VAIKOM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.11555/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.3.2009. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE 2ND RESPODNENT DT 27.3.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.3.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 11555 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a successful bidder in the auction held by the respondents on 26/3/2009 for the disposal of confiscated sand. He also deposited ` 87,413/- in terms of the tender conditions. Soon after the auction was held, the person from whom the sand was confiscated filed WP(C) No.9860/09 ad obtained stay of further proceedings pursuant to the auction held in favour of the petitioner. Thereupon petitioner applied for refund of the deposit. The request for refund was rejected by Ext.P3 stating that in view of the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, refund cannot be granted. 2. Now it is submitted that the aforesaid writ petition itself was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 22/12/2010, and that, pursuant to the direction in the judgment, the petitioner in WP(C) No.9860/09 was permitted to remove the sand auctioned in favour of the petitioner. Now therefore, petitioner submits that, in view of the aforesaid developments, the amount deposited by him should be refunded. WPC No. 11555/09 :2 : 3. Obviously on account of the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 9860/09, petitioner could not make use of the confiscated sand, which is for no fault of his. Taking note of the above and also taking note of the fact that subsequently the petitioner in WP(C) No. 9860/09 himself was permitted to remove the sand, the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount deposited by him is perfectly justified. 4. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will ensure that ` 87,413/- deposited by the petitioner is refunded to him. This the 2nd respondent shall do at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp