IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9734 of 2011(N) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- JOSE.M.L, S/O. LOUIS, MECHERRYPADI HOUSE, ALAPPAD, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR)., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9734 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, through which the 3rd respondent had set aside a sale conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. 2. The petitioner is the auction bider who had offered highest amount and remitted the entire bid amount. According tot he petitioner, against Ext.P6 he had submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 2nd respondent. But the same was not considered till date. Hence the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P6. 3. It is noticed that the statute provides an effective remedy against Ext.P6, as contemplated under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Contention of the petitioner is that the sale in question was set aside without notice to the petitioner and Ext.P6 order is vitiated. It is for the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy to assail Ext.P6 order, by approaching the appropriate revisional authority. 4. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for petitioner seeks interference of this court to W.P.(C).9734/11 -2- permit the petitioner to file revision against Ext.P6 and for a direction to the revisional authority to consider and dispose of such revision petition. It is made clear that it will be left open to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority under Section 83(1) through a properly constituted revision petition accompanied by petition seeking condonation of delay in filing such revision. Needless to say that the revisional authority shall consider the fact that the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent challenging Ext.P6 and that he had further filed this writ petition before this court, while considering the petition for condonation of delay. It is also left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from the revisional authority. 5. In order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate relief as directed above, further steps pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance by the 4th respondent for a period of two months from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb