AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The main prayers contained in the writ petition are as follows:
(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P1;
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1 recovery notice;
(iii) Restrain the respondents from proceeding further against the petitioner in the light of Ext.P1.
The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submits that the petitioner was a bidder of some forest wood in the public auction and after making the initial payment on becoming successful in the bid, the balance was not satisfied; under which circumstances, further steps were taken against him. The petitioner preferred Ext.R2(b) letter seeking for extension of time which, was granted till 30-12-1996, in spite of which, it was not cleared. Subsequently, Ext.R2(d) notice was issued on 11-12-1996, informing the petitioner that steps were being pursued to conduct ''re-auction'' at the cost and risk of the petitioner to compensate the loss, if any, and this was served upon the petitioner as borne by Ext.R2(e) postal acknowledgment card. As nothing transpired from the part of the petitioner in the positive, the re-auction was conducted, resulting in a loss to the Department, which was quantified and sought to be realised from the petitioner by passing Ext.R2(f) order. This was sent to the petitioner as registered post along with Ext.R2(g) statement of calculation fixing the total loss/liability as Rs. 1,60,001/-. The said proceeding was also served as evident from Ext.R2(h) and in spite of the service, the petitioner did not satisfy the same, which led to the issuance of Ext.R2(i) notice (which is the same as Ext.P1 produced by the petitioner and subject to challenge under writ petition).
The fixation of the loss as borne by Ext.R2(f) is not under challenge and as such, no interference is warranted in the writ petition, submits the learned Government Pleader.
There is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested in the cause of action projected in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition