IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 46 of 2007(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.RAJESHKUMAR, S/O.O.K.MADHAVAN SREESALAYAM, P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR. BY ADV.MR.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANNUR. 3. P.M.SHAMEEM, S/O.USMAN, P.M.HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. 4. M.KABEER, S/O.MOOSA, ROSEVILLA, THANA, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.SANILKUMAR R3 BY ADVS.MR.M.K.SUMOD, MR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.46/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 25.3.04. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC. NO.918/06 DTD. 5.4.06. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 3.8.06. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 3.8.06. P5:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 28.7.06. R3(a):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THAHSILDAR DTD. 26.12.06. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.46 OF 2007 (E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13C 1089. According to the petitioner, though the vehicle was purchased from the 4th respondent, who was the registered owner of vehicle No.KL-13A 2948 also, it is stated that in respect of vehicle No.KL-13A 2948 tax was in arrears and recovery proceedings resulted in attachment of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner viz, the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13C 1089. According to the petitioner, he challenged the attachment by filing WP(c).No.9018/06 in which Ext.P2 order was passed. It is alleged that when he sought release of the vehicle, he found that goods worth Rs.30,400/- were missing and therefore he filed Exts.P3 and P4 complaints. Petitioner submits that there was no response to either of these complaints and that while so on 20.12.2006, without any public notice or other type of notice the vehicle was auctioned and sold to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the petitioner came to know of the sale only subsequently and that there upon he filed Ext.P5 claim petition as well. It is WPC.46/2007 :2 : stated that, the petitioner is willing to abide by the conditions in Ext.P2 order, but however, the respondents were not taking any action on Exts.P3 and P4 and in the meanwhile steps were being taken to dismantle the vehicle. It is on this allegation the writ petition was filed praying to direct respondents 1 and 2 not to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 13C 1089 to the 3rd respondent, the auction purchaser and to direct consideration of the representations made by him. 2. At the stage of admission, this court passed an order dated 1.1.2007 directing that the vehicle, if not already handed over to the 3rd respondent, shall not be transferred. It was also directed that the vehicle shall not be dismantled and that the same shall be inspected and a report to be filed. Petitioner was also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- by way of security towards the cost before this court within two weeks, to be awarded in case the writ petition is ultimately dismissed. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that three revenue recovery requisitions were received by the District Collector, Kannur and that accordingly proceedings were initiated by issuing notice as provided under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is stated that, when the defaulter, the WPC.46/2007 :3 : registered owner, refused to comply with the notice the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13C 1089 was attached. It was at that stage WP(c). No.9018/2006 was filed. 4. According to the 2nd respondent the petitioner did not remit any amount as directed in Ext.P2 nor did he make Exts.P3 and P4 complaints as alleged in the writ petition. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances, after giving notice as required under the Revenue Recovery Act and the Rules framed thereunder, auction sale was held on 21.12.2006 and that the vehicle was sold to the 3rd respondent. It is thereafter that the respondent received the order dated 1.1.2007 passed by this court and thereupon he was informed that the vehicle was already handed over to the purchaser, who in turn has sold the same to a dealer on 22.12.2006 itself. It is therefore submitted that the allegations in the writ petition about the missing of goods worth of Rs.30,400/- justifying noncompliance with Ext.P2 order is absolutely incorrect. The contentions raised to the above effect are fully supported by the 3rd respondent as well. 5. From the above it is therefore evident that it was on account of a default committed by the registered owner, the vehicle was attached. The sale was conducted in full compliance with the procedure laid down. Long WPC.46/2007 :4 : before the interim order was passed the sale was concluded, the vehicle was handed over to the purchaser who had also sold the vehicle and the vehicle was dismantled. In such circumstances there is absolutely no bona fides in the relief sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and I do so. It is seen from I.A.No.712/02 that the petitioner has in compliance with the order dated 1.1.2007, deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Registrar of this court vide Demand Draft dated 11.1.2007. In view of the dismissal of the Writ petition it is directed that the amount of Rs.5000/- deposited by the petitioner as above will be transferred to the Kerala Mediation Centre. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/