JOSEPH ABRAHAM Vs. TAHSILDAR MEENACHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE objections are raised in this writ petition viz. , that the petitioner did not stand surety for M. T. Devasia so that the petitioner is not liable for the dues of devasia; that there is no agreement between the petitioner and the Government as contemplated by Article 299 of the Constitution; and that at any rate, no proceeding should be taken against the Petitioner under the Revenue Recovery act. On these grounds the petitioner seeks to quash Exs. P1 and P2 in the case.

(2.) ON 6th February 1962 there was an auction of toddy shops in which M. T. Devasia took part and bid one shop for Rs. 26,150/ -. In the Sale List the petitioner signed in a column headed "certificate of Solvency" against Devasia's name. Devasia failed to deposit 10 per cent of the bid amount as contemplated by Clause 10 of the Conditions of Sale of Abkari Shops; and the officer who conducted the auction had to re-auction the shop. At the re-auction the bid was lower; and the authorities started proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act to collect the difference from the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection before the tahsildar, the first respondent; but the Tahsildar proceeded to attach the petitioner's land without disposing of the objection. The petitioner then approached this Court in O. P. No. 545 of 1965; and this Court directed the tahsildar to dispose of the objection of the petitioner before his land was attached and sold. Thereafter, the order evidenced by Ex. P1 was passed on 15th April 1968 rejecting the objection of the petitioner; and subsequent thereto, the sale notice evidenced by Ex. P2 was issued on 20th May 1968. As stated already, the writ petition is to quash Exs. P1 and P2.

(3.) AT the fore-front of his arguments. Mr. K. C. John, the counsel of the petitioner, placed before us the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walawati Ram. 1971-1 SCWR 111 = (AIR 1971 NSC 172 ). According to mr. John, this decision applied directly to the present case: and that Devasia was consequently not liable to pay the difference as he was entitled to withdraw his offer before the Revenue Board accepted it absolutely as contemplated by Clause 13 of the Conditions of Sale. On the other hand, the Government Pleader contended that the decision of the Supreme Court might not apply to the case before us since the present case was one coming under Clause 10 of the conditions of Sale and not under Clause 15 as was the case before the Supreme court.