IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 2368 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.SHANKARAN, PROP. M/S. ATHIRA ENTERPRISES, DOOR NO.31/2127, KAROLLIL HOUSE, KAROLLIL LANE, THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KANAYANNUR. 3. SALES TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 24.10.07 ISSUED BY R1. P2 REPLY DT 6.11.07 TO EXT.P1. P3 ORDER DT 4.1.08 ISSUED BY R1. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2368 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Ext.P1 is a show cause notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 objections. But, the petitioner received Ext.P3 in which it is stated as follows: “ The sale of auction conducted by the Revenue Authorities on 14.2.2007 was after observing all the formalities under the Revenue Recovery Act. The sale notice was published and affixed in the residential building and in the attached building (and in the related Government Offices) in the presence of your wife & 2 witness on 10.1.2007. And at the same time, no stay order was received from the requisition authority, therefore the allegation raised in your petition is baseless. The Deputy Commissioner, CT, Ernakulam has informed that the Revision Petition filed by you had WPC.2368/08 : 2 : dismissed on 30.11.07. For the above reasons it is understood that you have been guilty of fraudulent conduct in order to evade payment.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 itself does not disclose any specific grounds. Everything is left blank. Secondly, it is pointed out that Ext.P2 objections were filed and Ext.P3 is received. He submitted that Section 65 of the R.R. Act cannot be invoked in this case. Counter and reply have been filed. The learned Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P3 is not an order passed under section 65 of the R.R. Act. He would further submit that an appropriate order in accordance with law will be passed taking note of Ext.P2 objections. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of as follows. 3. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 in accordance with law after WPC.2368/08 : 3 : affording an opportunity to hear the petitioner. The decision will be taken within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till the decision is taken in the matter as aforesaid, the petitioner shall not be arrested under section 65. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks