IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 1380 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19481/2007 Dated 16/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- CHIRAYINKEEZHU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.3404 REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 3. R.MADHAVAN, S/O.RAMAN NADAR, KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ANCHUMARAMKALA, VELLARADA P.O. 4. PADMAKUMAR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,KRISHNA COTTAGE, PANDAKASALA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R4 SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R4 SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR R4 SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1464 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos.1380 & 1464 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. These two appeals are directed against the judgment in Writ Petition No.19481/07. While the writ petitioner-Society, is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1380/09, respondent No.4 in the said writ petition is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1464/09. 2. Appellant/petitioner which is a Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society filed the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to respondent No.1, District Collector to pass orders on Ext.P5 petition filed by it seeking to set aside the sale held under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The other prayer in the writ petition was to issue a direction to respondent No.2, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), to accept the amount payable to its former employee (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) and to set aside the sale conducted on February 9, 2007. 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the sale on condition that the appellant paid interest on the purchase price deposited by respondent No.4 at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The learned Judge took a lenient view since the appellant is a Society and also since it was submitted by the W.A.Nos.1380 & 1464 OF 2009 :: 2 :: appellant that the entire dues payable to its former employee (for recovery of which the sale was held) had already been paid to him with interest. 4. The appellant/Society impugns the above judgment contending that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the society to pay interest to the auction purchaser (respondent No.4), particularly since the purchase money was lying in revenue deposit. The appellant also contends that the sale held by the revenue was irregular and improper. 5. In Writ Appeal No.1464/09, the appellant/auction purchaser contends that learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the sale and that too on the ground of sympathy. 6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition may be briefly noticed. 7. Respondent No.3, a former employee of the society, had filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming certain service benefits payable to him by the appellant/society. The application was allowed. Since payment was not made, an item of property belonging to the society was brought to sale. 8. It appears the the property was put to sale, initially, on July 26, 2006. But the sale was adjourned at the behest of the Society which undertook before the Revenue Authorities that the entire dues would be paid, immediately. The said undertaking was not honoured. Therefore, W.A.Nos.1380 & 1464 OF 2009 :: 3 :: the property was put to sale yet again on December 11, 2006. On that day, a contention was raised by the society with regard to the adequacy of the upset price. Therefore, the sale was adjourned again. 9. Thereafter the upset price of the property was refixed at Rs.5,68,591/-. In the sale held on February 9, 2007, respondent No.4 (the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1464/09) was the successful bidder. The sale price of Rs.6,15,000/- was admittedly deposited by the purchaser shortly thereafter. 10. It appears that thereafter, the Society preferred Ext.P5 application before the District Collector on February 24, 2007 purportedly under Section 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act alleging that the sale was vitiated by material irregularities. The said petition was heard by the District Collector on March 21, 2007. He passed Ext.P7 order on April 10, 2007 repelling all the contentions raised by the Society. Thereafter, on May 14, 2007 the sale was confirmed by the District Collector as can be seen from Ext.R4(a). 11. In this context, it may at once be noticed that the society filed the above writ petition on June 20, 2007 with the prayers mentioned earlier. It can be seen from the averments in the writ petition that the Society feigned ignorance as to what had transpired after the Revenue Sale and proceeded as though the sale was yet to be confirmed. But W.A.Nos.1380 & 1464 OF 2009 :: 4 :: curiously Ext.P7 order passed by the District Collector rejecting Ext.P5 application was produced by the Society itself. 12. As mentioned earlier, the first prayer in the writ petition was to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to the District Collector to pass orders on Ext.P5 application to set aside the revenue sale. We have adverted to this aspect only to state that going by the pleadings and documents available on record, it is apparent that the appellant/writ petitioner has clearly abused the process of this court. Evidently the society has approached this court with unclean hands. 13. According to the learned counsel for the appellant in Writ appeal No.1464/09, (auction purchaser) the learned Single Judge ought not to have shown any leniency to the Society and granted it an opportunity to remit the sale price with 10% interest. As has been noticed already, the attempt of the Society throughout had been to frustrate the sale, and on two earlier occasions it had managed to get the sale adjourned on one ground or the other. Ultimately after the sale took place in February 2007, the Society did not choose to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to it under the Revenue Recovery Act. Instead, the Society filed a petition under Section 53 of the Act with untenable contentions, which were rightly repelled by the District Collector. To make things worse, the Society approached this court pretending as W.A.Nos.1380 & 1464 OF 2009 :: 5 :: though the sale was not yet confirmed, though in fact it was confirmed on May 14, 2007 itself. The writ petition was filed only in June 2007. 14. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has shown misplaced sympathy on the Society which, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, did not deserve any kind of sympathy at all. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition and writ appeal filed by the Society with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid to respondent No.4 (auction purchaser) within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In default of payment of the same, respondent No.4 can recover it in accordance with law. In view of the above order passed by us, no further orders are necessary in W.A.No.1464/09. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes