IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 46 of 2007(E)
1. P.RAJESHKUMAR, S/O.O.K.MADHAVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
3. P.M.SHAMEEM, S/O.USMAN,
4. M.KABEER, S/O.MOOSA, ROSEVILLA,
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.SUMOD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.46 OF 2007 (E)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of stage carriage bearing
registration No.KL-13C 1089. According to the petitioner, though the
vehicle was purchased from the 4th respondent, who was the registered
owner of vehicle No.KL-13A 2948 also, it is stated that in respect of
vehicle No.KL-13A 2948 tax was in arrears and recovery proceedings
resulted in attachment of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner viz, the
vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13C 1089.
According to the petitioner, he challenged the attachment by filing
WP(c).No.9018/06 in which Ext.P2 order was passed. It is alleged that
when he sought release of the vehicle, he found that goods worth
Rs.30,400/- were missing and therefore he filed Exts.P3 and P4 complaints.
Petitioner submits that there was no response to either of these complaints
and that while so on 20.12.2006, without any public notice or other type of
notice the vehicle was auctioned and sold to the 3rd respondent.
It is stated that the petitioner came to know of the sale only
subsequently and that there upon he filed Ext.P5 claim petition as well. It is
WPC.46/2007
:2 :
stated that, the petitioner is willing to abide by the conditions in Ext.P2
order, but however, the respondents were not taking any action on Exts.P3
and P4 and in the meanwhile steps were being taken to dismantle the
vehicle. It is on this allegation the writ petition was filed praying to direct
respondents 1 and 2 not to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-
13C 1089 to the 3rd respondent, the auction purchaser and to direct
consideration of the representations made by him.
2. At the stage of admission, this court passed an order dated
1.1.2007 directing that the vehicle, if not already handed over to the 3rd
respondent, shall not be transferred. It was also directed that the vehicle
shall not be dismantled and that the same shall be inspected and a report to
be filed. Petitioner was also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- by
way of security towards the cost before this court within two weeks, to be
awarded in case the writ petition is ultimately dismissed.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter
affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that three revenue recovery
requisitions were received by the District Collector, Kannur and that
accordingly proceedings were initiated by issuing notice as provided under
the Revenue Recovery Act. It is stated that, when the defaulter, the
WPC.46/2007
:3 :
registered owner, refused to comply with the notice the vehicle bearing
registration No.KL-13C 1089 was attached. It was at that stage WP(c).
No.9018/2006 was filed.
4. According to the 2nd respondent the petitioner did not remit any
amount as directed in Ext.P2 nor did he make Exts.P3 and P4 complaints as
alleged in the writ petition. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances,
after giving notice as required under the Revenue Recovery Act and the
Rules framed thereunder, auction sale was held on 21.12.2006 and that the
vehicle was sold to the 3rd respondent. It is thereafter that the respondent
received the order dated 1.1.2007 passed by this court and thereupon he
was informed that the vehicle was already handed over to the purchaser,
who in turn has sold the same to a dealer on 22.12.2006 itself. It is
therefore submitted that the allegations in the writ petition about the missing
of goods worth of Rs.30,400/- justifying noncompliance with Ext.P2 order
is absolutely incorrect. The contentions raised to the above effect are fully
supported by the 3rd respondent as well.
5. From the above it is therefore evident that it was on account of a
default committed by the registered owner, the vehicle was attached. The
sale was conducted in full compliance with the procedure laid down. Long
WPC.46/2007
:4 :
before the interim order was passed the sale was concluded, the vehicle was
handed over to the purchaser who had also sold the vehicle and the vehicle
was dismantled. In such circumstances there is absolutely no bona fides in
the relief sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed and I do so.
It is seen from I.A.No.712/02 that the petitioner has in compliance
with the order dated 1.1.2007, deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the
Registrar of this court vide Demand Draft dated 11.1.2007. In view of the
dismissal of the Writ petition it is directed that the amount of Rs.5000/-
deposited by the petitioner as above will be transferred to the Kerala
Mediation Centre.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/