IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38255 of 2007(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- NADEEM, S/O.SULAIMAN SAIT, AGED 27, CHERALAKULATHU HOUSE, CC16/444, THOPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. BASHEER, S/O.(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 45), SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), OFFICE TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1. BY SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 38255 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had approached this Court with a grievance that the auction sale scheduled to be conducted on 27.12.2007 was not being conducted in accordance with the prescriptions contained in Section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It was the further contention that the auction notice was published as late as on 22.12.2007. There was inadequate notice in the publication of the sale. This was apparently intended to restrict the prospective buyers, according to the petitioner. Petitioner had a further contention that he was an intending purchaser and he wanted to inspect the property before making a bid. The properties which were intended to be sold as mentioned in Exhibit P1 is 45.500 cents of property with factory buildings and machineries therein. Petitioner had apparently submitted Exhibit P3 representation before the District Collector on 24.12.2007 raising certain allegations against the Special Tahasildar, the 3rd respondent. The writ petition was filed on W.P ( C) No. 38255 of 2008 2 26.12.2007 and it came up on 28.12.2007. On 28.12.2007, it was noticed that the owner of the property was not made a party to the writ petition. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for time to take steps to implead the owner of the property. I.A No.681/2008 was thereafter filed for impleading M/s. Fancy Foods, Moulana Azad Road, Kochi -2 as additional 4th respondent. 2. When the matter came up today, the Special Government Pleader Sri. Mathew George Vadakkel submits that the sale was held on 27.12.2007 and the highest bid quoted was Rs.2 Crores 21 Lakhs. The bid has been accepted and the sale is pending confirmation. 3. Now that the sale has been held on 27.12.2007 the main relief sought for by the petitioner obviously cannot be considered. But I make it clear that if the petitioner proposes to offer a higher amount than what has already been offered then he is entitled to make such a request before the District Collector. If such a request is received by the 2nd respondent, District Collector, he shall ascertain the bona fides and the credit worthiness of the petitioner and then consider whether further W.P ( C) No. 38255 of 2008 3 steps have to be taken in that regard, on the offer made by the petitioner . Reserving the petitioner's liberty to do so, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 38255 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007