IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 1515 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- SIMON MATHEW, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, EDAPALAKKATT (H), PERAMADOM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR (R.R) KFC BRANCH OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. * ADDITIONAL R2 & R3 IMPLEADED 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA. *IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 & R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 15/02/2010 IN I.A. NO. 1910/2010. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA R2 & R3 BY SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 1515 of 2010(L) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 30.11.2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7.12.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DATED 27.10.2009. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID MAHAZAR DATED 07.12.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1515 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT The main prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the respondents to accept the balance portion of the bid amount and confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner. 2. The public notice for auction is dated 30.11.2009, which was for sale of 1.22 hectors of land situated in R.S.No.107/1 of Marayoor Village. The defaulter is Marayoor Paper Boards Private Ltd. According to the petitioner, he was the successful bidder and the bid amount was Rs.73,45,000/-. He deposited 15% of the bid amount; i.e., 11,01,750/-. 3. The petitioner's case is that he was ready to effect payment of the balance amount; but no communication was received and in that situation, he went to the Office of the 1st respondent on 6.1.2010 and offered the amount by issuing a cheque, which was not accepted. On the next day, i.e., on 7.1.2010, he again went to the Office of the 1st respondent for payment of the entire balance amount by way of cash, which also was not accepted by the Financial Corporation. According to the W.P.(C)No.1515/10 -2- petitioner, there is no wilful default on the part of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the Writ Petition has been filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Tahsildar, it is pointed out that the properties belonging to Marayoor Paper Boards Private Ltd. was attached for the dues to the Kerala Financial Corporation and the sale was posted at 11.30 a.m. On 7.12.2009. Except for the property comprised in 0.8360 hectors of land comprised in R.S.No.135/1, there were no bid. In the said lot, the petitioner participated along with four other persons and he was the highest bidder. The bid amount was Rs.73,45,000/- and he deposited 15% of the bid amount in cash at the K.F.C.Branch Office, Thodupuzha on the same day. It is pointed out that his claim that the sale was held for 1.22 hectors in R.S.No.107/1 is not correct and he has no right over that property. It is also pointed out that he had to deposit the balance of the purchase money on or before 30th day of the sale, i.e., on 6.1.2010 and there is no practise of sending any reminders. On 6.1.2010, the petitioner submitted a cash cheque for Rs.62,43,250/- of Catholic Syrian Bank, Nellad Branch. It was not accepted by the 1st respondent, as there was no Branch W.P.(C)No.1515/10 -3- of Catholic Syrian Bank at Kattappana and the money could not be drawn on that day which is the last date for deposit of money in terms of sale notice. The petitioner came on 7.1.2010 with the cash required, but that could not be accepted because of the expiry of the statutory period of 30 days. It is submitted that in that view of the matter the prayer for confirming the sale cannot be granted and the authority for passing orders on the confirmation of sale is the Deputy Collector(RR), Kerala financial Corporation, Thiruvananthrpuram. These aspects have been pointed out in the statement filed on behalf of the Kerala Financial Corporation also. 5. Evidently, the petitioner did not deposit the balance amount on or before 6.1.2010 and the petitioner had only offered a cheque on that day, which could not be accepted, as there was no Branch of the Catholic Syrian Bank in Kattappana or nearby. The terms and conditions of the sale are binding on all the parties. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the Writ Petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in the event of this Court refusing to issue any direction to W.P.(C)No.1515/10 -4- confirm the sale, the advance amount may be directed to be returned to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the KFC submitted that going by Section 49(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act the amount is liable to be forfeited. I am not finally pronouncing anything on that issue because herein, the petitioner has mainly prayed for a direction for confirmation of the auction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to file a representation before the authority concerned for the return of the advance amount paid. Therefore, if any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the competent authority will consider the same in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are irregularities in the conduct of sale, which he may be allowed to raise before the appropriate authorities. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the same have not been raised in this writ petition. It is upto the petitioner to pursue any such contention if it is legally permissible before the authority concerned or the forum prescribed. Leaving W.P.(C)No.1515/10 -5- open the remedy in such matters, the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner moving the authorities concerned as pointed out above. No costs. Sd/- ( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn