IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26991 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAYAKUMAR, THODIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU NEDUMGOLAM P.O., PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 301. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM- 691 301. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MUHAMMED SHAH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 26991 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.16.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.24.6.2011 ALONG WITH REPORT DT.24.6.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.16.7.2011 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 26991 of 2011 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioners says that, in an auction conducted by the second respondent on 16.06.2011 for the sale of 28 truck loads of river sand seized by the fourth respondent, he had quoted `4,15,500/- and was the highest bidder. It is stated that accordingly the auction was confirmed in his favour and he remitted the entire amount that was due which included the tax payable. Ext.P1 is the receipt evidencing such payment. According to the petitioner, there was delay on the part of the second respondent in issuing passes and finally he made Ext.P2 request for refund of the amount deposited. 2. Thereupon, the second respondent granted three days time to remove the entire quantity and that during the said limited period, he could remove only 15 truck loads of W.P.(C) No.26991/2011 : 2 : sand. When the period expired, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 petition to the second respondent requesting for granting 10 more days time. But, the second respondent has not passed any order extending the time, as a result of which, the petitioner could not remove the balance quantity of river sand. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. From the facts pleaded by the petitioner, his case is that he has paid the entire amount payable towards value of the sand in question. It is also his case that due to paucity of time, he could not remove the entire quantity of sand and it is on that basis, he is seeking extension of time by ten days. Taking note of the facts, prima facie, I do not see any reason why the petitioner shall not be given extension of time and further passes. 4. In any case, this is a matter for the second respondent to consider. Therefore, I direct that the second respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P3, within ten days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a W.P.(C) No.26991/2011 : 3 : copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/28/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge