DAKSHINA KANNADA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the auction notice dated 14.05.2012 impugned at Annexure -C and also the notice dated 01.06.2012 at Annexure -E to the petition. The petitioner in that regard is seeking that a mandamus be issued to direct respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.06.2012 and 09.01.2013.

(2.) THE petitioner is a co -operative society which had established its Sugar factory. Due to difficult circumstance in performing its activity, the petitioner had suffered loss. Among other amounts which were outstanding, the terminal benefits of two of its employees viz, Sri N. Hebbar and Smt. Ophelia Fernandes which was quantified roughly at Rs. 7,85,000/ - in the year 2005 was due. Towards the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and to be paid to the said persons, an extent measuring 25 cents of the property bearing Sy. No. 31/1A/1P391 of Baikady village was brought to sale. Initially though the said extent had been carved out but no proceedings had been initiated by the respondents No. 1 to 4 to recover the amount, the said two employees were before this Court in W.P. No. 25078/2005. This Court by the order dated 24.08.2010 had allowed the petition and directed respondent No. 3 therein to take necessary steps to enforce the recovery certificates issued in favour of the petitioners. It is pursuant to the said order the subsequent action for sale of the property has been taken.

(3.) THE respondents have filed their objection statement. The action initiated is sought to be justified by referring to the manner in which the Recovery Certificate had been issued and the direction that had been issued by this Court in W.P. No. 25078/2005. The review petition in R.P. No. 133/2012 is also referred insofar as the amount that was required to be realised by way of sale. It is indicated that the amount of Rs. 7,85,000/ - was quantified in the year 2005 and for the payment of the said amount, the interest was also to be added and as such keeping in view all these aspects, the extent of 25 cents which had been carved out was at a stage earlier to the filing of the petition by the employees and in that light when a direction had been issued by this Court in the earlier petition, the process was to be completed in the same manner for the said 25 cents that had been quantified. It is pointed out that the reserve price had been fixed by taking into consideration the guidance value and in any event, ultimately the price fetched in the auction is above the said amount that had been indicated and therefore at this juncture, the auction cannot be held as bad.