The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P20 and P21 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari ;
ii) declare that the auction conducted on 12.05.1995 is illegal and unsustainable as the same was conducted in violation of the rules under second schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent from registering Exts. P20 & P21 certificates issued by the 1st respondent relating to the property covered by the document Ext.P2, in favour of the 4th respondent; and/or
iv) issue any other writ/order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. When the matter came up for consideration on 18.05.2005, the following order was passed:
“Standing Counsel for respondents pointed out that the issue is covered by an W.P.(C)No.14170 OF 2005 2 earlier judgment of this Court in O.P.7180/95 dated 18/2/05. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitioner in that O.P. has filed an application for restoring the O.P. as, according to him, the O.P. had not become infructuous. In the circumstances, Registry will post this W.P. before the same learned Single Judge along with the restoration application filed in O.P.7180/95 D.”
3. This Court called for a copy of the verdict in O.P.7180/95 and the same is made available, which reads as follows:
“The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Original Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly it is dismissed.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents pointed out that on the strength of an interim order granted by this Court against the attachment and sale of the property of the petitioner , she has sold it to a third party. It is also submitted that in fact, the revenue has conducted auction and part payment has been received from the successful bidder
3. The act of Court can prejudice none. With the dismissal of the O.P., the W.P.(C)No.14170 OF 2005 3 interim order will also go. Therefore, the respondents will be free to proceed against the petitioner and her property ignoring the action taken by her on the strength of the interim order of this Court.”
4. Heard both the sides. This Court finds that in view of the judgment in O.P and the course and proceedings being pursued by the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to entertain the reliefs sought for. That apart, the petitioner had approached this Court only on 10.05.2005 challenging the auction conducted by the Department on 12.05.1995. In the said circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed , without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk