IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 37045 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PALLIVALAPPIL MAHAMOOD, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, KHADIJA MANZIL, MATTOOL AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. K.P.JYOTHISH, PARTNER, GEETHA CONFECTIONARIES KANNUR-1. 4. K.P.AJITH KUMAR, PARTNER, GEETHA CONFECTIONARIES, KANNUR-1. 5. K.P.SREEJESH, PARTNER, GEETHA CONFECTIONARIES, KANNUR-1. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 37045 OF 2007 I ==================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that respondents 3 to 5 are defaulters, who defaulted payment of sales tax arrears. According to him, though he is a bonafide purchaser, it is to realise the defaulted sales tax dues, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2. Petitioner submits that the defaulters had transferred the property to his transferor and that without knowing any of the liabilities, they purchased the property in all bonafides. It is also contended that in Ext.P8 representation filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, he has indicated that several items of properties are still available with the defaulters and on that basis seeks a direction that those properties are first to be proceeded against before proceeding against petitioner . 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the writ WPC 37045/07 :2 : petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, I feel that the ends of justice require that the 1st respondent should examine the correctness of the claims made by the petitioner in Ext.P8 and find out as to whether the defaulters are still in possession of any other items of properties, in which case, consider whether those properties can be proceeded against, atleast initially. 3. Accordingly, I direct that the 1st respondent should take up Ext.P8, conduct necessary enquiry and find out if any other items of properties are still in the hands of the defaulters to be proceeded against for realising the dues that are now sought to be realised by revenue recovery against the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. It is clarified that in case, even after taking such action as directed above, if the respondents are unsuccessful in realising the entire debts, they will be free to proceed against the property covered by Exts. P1 and P2 as well. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp