IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 397 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3054/2011 Dated 07/02/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / PETITIONER -------------- K.T.MATHEW, S/O.THOMAS, KADAMBANADU HOUSE, P.O.KOTTATHARA, AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 001. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA - 678 508, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, P.O.MANNARKKAD - 678 582, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.397 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge sustaining revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant for the loss caused to the State for breach of contract by the appellant. The appellant admittedly purchased pepper and other items sold by the Government in auction on specific conditions stated in the tender notice. The appellant purchased the goods for Rs.5,01,584/- and did not remit the amount in time. He made repeated requests for extension of time which was granted and in the last request he specifically stated that if payment is not made within the extended time, the Government can resell the goods at the risk and cost of the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant filed the WP(C) to further delay the matter and he did not remit the amount and reauction was conducted at the risk and cost of the appellant, wherein the Government suffered around 50% W.A.No.397/2011 -2- loss. It is this amount which is stated to be recovered as loss caused to the Government. The learned Single Judge found no merit in the challenge against the recovery proceedings. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant raised various contentions, we do not think there is any scope for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge confirming the recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant for the simple reason that after accepting tender conditions and participating in the tender and after committing breach of the sale conditions, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise wild contentions on jurisdictional aspects, limitation etc. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg