The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers.
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts.P6 proceedings of the 3rd respondent.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd Respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 and P4 petitions and pass orders thereon after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
c) Issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent not to take any further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1, P2 and P6 proceedings.”
2. The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P6 proceedings dated 04.11.2014, issued by the 3rd respondent, pursuant to Ext.P3 revision petition preferred under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The case of the petitioner is that, because the coercive proceedings taken under the R.R. Act, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.27278 of 2014, which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 dated 20.10.2014, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass WP(c). No. 30666 of 2014 2 appropriate orders on Ext.P4 petition for stay, in accordance with law, within the specified time. The petitioner contends that, without any regard to the said verdict, the proceedings came to be finalised as per Ext.P6, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and referring to some 'defects' as to the sufficiency of 'Court Fee Stamp' affixed on the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, no opportunity was ever given to the petitioner to have the defects, if any, cured, simultaneously adding that, Ext.P6 is never a speaking order at all.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that the petitioner had not produced copy of Ext.P5 judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No.27278 of 2014, before the 3rd respondent. With reference to Ext.P5, it is stated that, the 3rd respondent has already recalled Ext.P6 and the revision petition has been listed for hearing on 10.12.2014, adding that, the revision petition will be heard on merits and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law.
4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that, no further orders are necessary, but for mentioning that, if at all any WP(c). No. 30666 of 2014 3 defect is there, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to have the same cured. Final orders on merit, in Ext.P3 revision petition shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further steps.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn