IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15686 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S KAROTHUMADATHIL RUBBERSM RUBBER DEALER, KANJIRAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR BIJU K. BY ADV. MR. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. FARM HOUSE, P.B. NO. 13, VETTITHITTA P.O., ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY 3. VILLAGE OFFIER - KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR. AJITH KRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL R2 AND R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15686 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner participated in Ext.P1 tender proceedings, floated by the first respondent and the bid was accepted by the first respondent on his turning to be the successful bidder. Despite the acceptance of the bid, it is borne out from the proceedings that, the petitioner did not lift the materials from the first respondent at the agreed rate, which made them to forfeit the 'EMD' followed by necessary steps for re auction at the cost and risk of the defaulter, as specifically stipulated in clause 6 in Ext.P1. It is case of the petitioner that fixation of liability on the petitioner is not all correct or proper and hence seeks for interference of this Court. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent as well. 3. Case of the petitioner is that, the default was never wilful but because of the sudden fall in the rate of commodities and further when an epidemic broke out in the are, whereby almost all the labourers had to retreat despite the wish and will of petitioner, which made the petitioner to seek for some enlargement of time. It is also brought out that petitioner has already approached first respondent by filing Ext.P9 representation, which is yet to be acted upon; whereas the first WP (C) No. 15686 of 2009 : 2 : respondent is proceeding with further coercive steps invoking the machinery under the relevant provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which in turn is sought to be intercepted in the present Writ Petition. 4. This Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The only point to be noted is that, no opportunity was given to the petitioner as to the fixation of the loss of liability upon him while issuing Ext.P6 followed by the Revenue Recovery Proceedings. In the said circumstances, it is only fit and proper that the matter be considered by the first respondent by finalizing Ext.P9 representation preferred by the petitioner. 5. The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P9 representation in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that, till such appropriate orders are passed, all further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd