N.A. RAJU Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging the sale notices issued at Exhibits P11 and P12. The petitioner, in fact, was aggrieved with the penalty orders passed for the years 2005 -06, 2006 -07, 2007 -08 and 2008 -09. The petitioner contends in the writ petition that, appeals were filed from the said penalty orders, as is evidenced from Exhibits P1 to P4. Interlocutory applications for urgent hearing of the appeals were also filed, as is evidenced from Exhibits P5 to P8, on 14.11.2011. The petitioner sought for expeditious consideration of the appeals by a writ petition, numbered as W.P.(C).31507 of 2011. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 25.11.2011, directed consideration of the stay petitions filed in the appeals, expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. The petitioner contends that Exhibit P10 order was passed and the conditional order could not be complied with by the petitioner. Now, Exhibits P11 and P12 revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated and the petitioner, in the present writ petition, prays that the appeals filed may be considered and in the meanwhile the auction proceedings initiated may be stayed.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader on instructions, however, submits that time and again when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, the petitioner had approached this Court and interdicted the same; but, however, had not complied with the conditions. The learned Government Pleader also refers specifically to W.P.(C).No.31935 of 2013 filed by the petitioner, inter alia seeking disposal of the stay petitions filed and the delay in final hearing of the appeals. This Court, on taking up the matter, had in fact passed an interim order, as is indicated in the judgment:

(3.) IN the present case, though the cause of action is different in so far as the recovery proceedings in Exhibits P11 and P12, the petitioner had an obligation to bring to the notice of this Court the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. Considering the fact that consistently petitioner has been suppressing facts before this Court, it has to be deemed to be an attempt to controvert the due process with a deliberate intend, which this Court cannot countenance. Considering the entire circumstances and also going through the writ petition W.P.(C).No.31935 of 2013 and the judgment, which is extracted herein above, this Court finds that the petitioner has deliberately attempted an abuse of process of this Court. The petitioner, hence, would be imposed with exemplary cost of Rs.25, 000/ - [Rupees twenty five thousand only], which shall be paid to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre. If payment is not effected within a month, the Registrar General shall issue necessary certificate to the beneficiary so as to realise the same by way of appropriate proceedings, including revenue recovery. Registry shall forward a copy of the judgment to the Director, Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre.