Thomas Antony Mathew vs The Recovery Officer and Oriental Bank of Commerce

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

(i) To issue a Writ or Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions to stay the sale of all that part and parcel of the land admeasuring 2.448 Hectares (2.70 Hectares in Encumberance Certificate and Valuation report) in Re-Survey No. 325/5, Block No 14 (old Sy. No. 1/1A) and 2.62 Hectares in Re-Survey No. 325/4 Block No. 14 (Sy No 1/1A) of Kanjirapally village talu and Sub-District, within Kottayam District scheduled to be held on 24.9.2009 by the first respondent for a period of 30 days from the date of issue of order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the first respondent in Ext.P1 claim petition.

(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions commanding the first respondent to issue a certified copy of the order dated 22.9.2009 in Ext.P2 and to post the sale after 30 days from the date of issue of the copy.

And

(ii) To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition.

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.9.2009, an interim order was passed directing the first respondent to keep in abeyance the confirmation of sale, if any, for a period of two weeks, which was extended from time to time.

With regard to the first prayer, since the only relief sought for is to keep the sale proceedings pending for a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the order dated 22.9.2009, passed by the first respondent in Ext.P1 claim petition, the purpose has already been served and is no more open to have any further adjudication.

With regard to the second prayer i.e. to issue certified copy of the order dated 22.9.2009 in Ext.P2, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner has already obtained a copy of the same. As such the said prayer has become infructuous.

In the above circumstances, this Court does not propose to go into the merits involved in this Case. The Writ Petition is closed. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is actually a mentally sick person represented by her sister and that there was an interim order granted by this Court, which was throughout in existence right from 24.9.2009 and since the purpose of the Writ Petition was to obtain certified copy of the order passed by the recovery officer on 22.09.2009 in Ext.P2 application and to avail the statutory remedy, it is made clear that the disposal of the present Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner from availing such remedy, in accordance with law.