Ramachandra Menon,J
The re-auction conducted by the respondent- department, at the risk and cost of the appellant, followed by subsequent proceedings by way of removing the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realise the amount stated as due from the appellant made him approach this Court by filing writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner/appellant was that he had participated in auction of some teak logs and poles and came to be the successful bidder. Later, the petitioner/appellant realised that the teak poles were not to the standard specifications which was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned by submitting Ext.P1 representation. This led to preparation of Ext.P2 mahazar by the authorities (Forest Department); pursuant to which the DFO removed 18 poles from the purview of the tender and the remaining items were subjected to re auction at the cost and risk of the writ petitioner/appellant. The proceedings were finalised accordingly and thereafter revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against petitioner for realisation of the loss as per Ext.P3 (a). This was ought to be challenged by the writ petitioner by the filing the writ petition as mentioned herein before. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner/appellant had already approached civil court by filing O.S.No.412 of 1999, almost raising similar contentions stating that, he was not liable to satisfy any cost for make up any deficit amount in re-auction and seeking for declaration accordingly. The matter was considered by the Civil Court and the suit was dismissed, declining interference, making some specific observations in this regard.
3. Filing of the said suit, or the fate of the proceedings was never brought to the notice of this Court, by raising appropriate pleadings in the writ petition. This aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge only from the part of the respondents, when the matter was considered. The specific observations made by the learned Munsiff were extracted in paragraph 5, so as to have a proper analysis of the facts and figures. Observing that the basic relief sought for by the petitioner/appellant was almost the same as sought for in the civil suit, the contention raised by the petitioner/appellant that he was not liable to satisfy any amount towards risk and cost pursuant to re-auction was repelled and the writ petition was dismissed declining interference.
4. We do not find any sustainable ground to intercept the finding and reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed accordingly.
The course and conduct pursued by the appellant in suppressing the material facts cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words. However, we reluctantly refrain from awarding cost.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj 18/06