IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9613 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ AJITH KUMAR,S/O.GOVINDA MENON, AGED 41 YEARS, SREELAKSHMI, PARVATHIPURAM, PANNIYAMKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST-673003. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TAHSILDAR [RR], OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTOOLY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. 4. M.K.GANGADHARAN, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AISWARYA, KOTTOOLLY, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.9613 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that for realisation of sale tax arrears of the 4th respondent, first respondent conducted sale of 6.92 cents of property belonging to the defaulter. Petitioner was the highest bidder and he also made full payment of the value. According to him, though all procedural formalities have been complied with, he came to know that it was proposed to conduct re-auction and the petitioner has produced Ext.P4 and P5 which are the notices issued by the Tahsildar intimating that it has been decided to conduct the re-auction and the notice that has been published preceding the re-auction. 2. The learned Government Pleader entered appearance and submits that since the price fixed for the auction of which the petitioner was the successful bidder was much low, orders were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the auction and it was following the order of cancellation that Ext.P5 auction notice was issued. WPC 9613/08 2 3. The facts show that admittedly the petitioner is the highest bidder in the auction that was held and he deposited the full bid amount also and thereafter Ext.P3 proclamation of purchase was also issued by the 4th respondent. 4. In these circumstances, before cancelling the auction, petitioner is entitled to be issued notice. This has not been done in this case. For that reason itself Exts.P4 and P5 are to be quashed and I do so. 5. It is directed that if any one of the respondents 1 to 3 propose to cancel the auction now settled in favour of the petitioner they will be free to do so, but however, only after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl