IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19014 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BASHEER, S/O.MUHAMMED KANNU, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAVITHAKONAM HOUSE, KATTAKKADA, THATTAMPARA MURI, VEERNAKKAVU VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT.ARIFA BEEVI, W/O.BASHEER, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAVITHAKONAM HOUSE, KATTAKKADA, THATTAMPARA MURI, VEERNAKKAVU VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THRISSUR - 580 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, AKSHAYA SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD BRANCH, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.NAVEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19014 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The main challenge is in respect of the steps taken by the respondents under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Exts.P7 and P8. The relevant facts and figures have been disputed from the part of the petitioners by filing petition before the 1st respondent under Section 72 (1) (ii) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as borne by Ext.P9, which is stated as pending. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance projected by the petitioner will stand redressed if directions are given to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract things; more so since Ext.P9 representation was preferred on the eve of the auction scheduled on 22.06.2010. It is also stated that the respondents would have definitely considered Ext.P9, had the petitioner approached the concerned authority well on time and since all the arrangements have been made to conduct the auction tomorrow, if the sale is deferred, It is likely to cause much loss and hardship to the respondents, submits the learned counsel. 4. In response to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners 2 WP(C) No. 19014/2010 submits that the case projected by the petitioner is very much on the basis of the actual facts and figures borne out by the records and that there is every chance for the 1st respondent to have allowed Ext.P9. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to satisfy a portion of the disputed liability, so as to prove their bonafides. 5. In the above circumstance, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) within one week and a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) within two weeks thereafter; on which event, the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P9 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month thereafter. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued, including by way of sale scheduled tomorrow, shall be kept in abeyance, till such final orders are passed as above. The liability of the petitioners will depend upon the orders to be passed by the 1st respondent in Ext.P9. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioners in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, by pursuing such steps pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc