IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 1232 of 2008(S) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPCR.354/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WP(CRL) ----------------------------------- RAVICHANDRA LAL, 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE SASIDHARA PANICKER, PANNIMUTTATH HOUSE, KARIMOM, EDAGRAMAM P.O., THIRUVANNTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP(CRL) ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESHBABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33736 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ........................................... R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Cr)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010. O R D E R Sankaran, J: W.P.(Cr)No.354/2008 was filed the next friend of Sri.K. Jayachandran, who was detained in civil prison for non payment of abkari dues. In the writ petition, it was contended that the arrest and detention was contrary to the amnesty scheme and the detenu had enough time to pay the arrears. It was submitted that the detenu could pay the amount as per the amnesty scheme. As per the interim order dated 16.10.2008 the detenu was released from prison. 2. Taking note of the facts and circumstances and the submission made at the Bar, W.P.(Cr)No.354/2008 was disposed of by the judgment dated 30th October, 2008. Paragraph-2 of the judgment reads as follows: “Therefore, we make it clear that the amounts as stated in Ext.P6 shall first be remitted and thereafter, if there is any : 2 : R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Crl)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 dispute regarding quantification, it will be open to Jayachandran to pursue the same in appropriate proceedings, if the same is otherwise permissible. We also make it clear that Jayachandran shall not leave the country and shall not dispose of any of his assets until the dues are cleared as above. He shall also report in person before the first respondent once during the months of November, December, 2008 and January, 2009. In that view of the matter, no further proceedings need be taken pursuant to Ext.P1.” 3. The grievance put forward in the Review Petition is that the direction in paragraph-2 of the judgment would stand in the way of the defaulter disputing the correctness of the amount claimed from him. It is also submitted that there is dispute regarding forfeiture of the security amount which has to be adjusted towards the amount due. It is also pointed out that W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 was filed by the defaulter challenging the forfeiture and all the contentions challenging the correctness of the amount claimed have : 3 : R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Crl)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 been raised in that writ petition. 4. As per the order dated 19.12.2008 in W.P.(C). NO.33736 OF 2008, a direction was issued to respondents 1 to 9 therein to put the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 solvency certificates for sale in public auction within one month. It was also held that the amount realised in public auction shall be credited against the liability of the defaulter (Sri.Jayachandran) and that of the 10th respondent (Smt. Usha). 5. Pursuant to the order dated 19.12.2008, two items of immovable properties were sold in public auction. One item was purchased by the additional 11th respondent (Sri.Sithu S. Jayan) for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. The other item was purchased by the additional 12th respondent (Sri.Mohandas) for a sum of Rs.46,01,000/=. They had remitted a sum of Rs.3,75,000/= and Rs.13,80,300/= respectively. However, the amount deposited by them were forfeited and the sale : 4 : R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Crl)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 was set aside since they did not pay the balance amount within time. 6. When the review petition as well as the writ petition came up for orders on 18th June, 2009, a Division Bench passed the following order: “In the above circumstances, subject to further orders as to the proceedings said to have been taken by the authorities in forfeiting the advance and cancelling the sale, we direct the writ petitioner Sri.K. Jayachandran to remit an amount of Rs.30 lakhs on or before 30.7.2009. We permit the auction purchasers, Sithu and Mohandas to remit the balance of the auction amount within three weeks from today. In that view of the matter, there will be a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the forfeiture of the advance amounts paid by Sithu and Mohandas. We make it clear that in case the amounts are offered by the parties referred to above, the same shall be received subject to further orders from this Court.” 7. It is submitted that the auction purchasers have remitted the entire balance due. It is also submitted that : 5 : R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Crl)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 the sale in favour of additional respondents 11 and 12 is liable to be confirmed. The learned Government Pleader has no objection for confirming the sale. 8. Accordingly,the sale in favour of additional respondents 11 and 12 shall stand confirmed on satisfying that the entire balance amount payable by them is paid. It is made clear that in case there is any deficit, additional respondents 11 and 12 undertake to pay the same within one week from the date of receipt of an intimation in that behalf. The order setting aside the sale was made pending consideration of the review petition as well as W.P.(C). NO.33736 OF 2008, about which the Division Bench had indicated in the order dated 18th June, 2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the revenue authorities were not justified in setting aside the sale without getting orders from this Court. We are of the view that the order passed by the revenue authorities setting aside the sale is : 6 : R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Crl)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 liable to be set aside. We do so. 9. The learned counsel appearing for Sri.Jayachandran (defaulter) submitted that if the amount deposited by him and the amount fetched at the auction sale are taken into account, the entire amount due to the Government was satisfied. According to the defaulter, he has paid some excess amount. 10. The review petition and I.A.No.3127/2010 in W.P. (C)No. 33736/2008 are disposed of as above. Post W.P.(C)No.33736/2008 before the Bench hearing writ petitions. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cl : 7 : R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Crl)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008 : 8 : R.P.NO.1232 OF 2008 in W.P.(Crl)No.354/2008 & I.A.NO.3127 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.33736 OF 2008