Kerala High Court
Dr Melvin Aby Simon vs District Collector, Ernakulam on 23 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17788 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DR.MELVIN ABY SIMON
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.T.A.SIMON, THARAMANNIL HOUSE, KOTTATHUR P. O,
AYROOR, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689663
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM SAMSON
LOVELY SAMSON
SAFAL P. SALIM
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 689101
2 TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY OTHER THAT PUBLIC REVENUE)
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 689101
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA - SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17788 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he has obtained an Award from the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, in Complaint
No.141/2021 and has produced Ext.P1 in substantiation. His singular
allegation is that sufficient and adequate steps have not been taken by
the respondents to execute the said Award; and thus prays that his
Ext.P2 representation be directed to be decided by the competent
among respondents, without any avoidable delay. He also seeks a
relief that the 2nd respondent be directed to file a statement, as to the
steps taken with respect to the recovery and explains that this is
necessary because of the perceived inaction as of now.
2. Smt.C.S.Sheeja - learned Senior Government Pleader,
however, in response to the afore assertions of the petitioner - as
made by his learned counsel Sri.Abraham Samson - submitted that the
imputations above are not true and that every necessary measure for
recovery has already been initiated by the respondents. She submitted
that, therefore, if the petitioner so requires, Ext.P2 representation can
be considered by the competent among the respondents, after
affording him an opportunity of being heard, so that he will also be
convinced of the steps already taken.
3. I find that the afore suggestion of the learned Senior
Government Pleader is the most apposite in the given circumstances
because, it aligns with the reliefs sought for by the petitioner also.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct
the competent among the respondents to take Ext.P2 representation
of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording him an
opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order
and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not
later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, the liberty of the petitioner to bring any
information to the notice of the respondents, including the assets of
the person/entity against whom the Award has been obtained, are left
open, which will also be then considered by the Authority in terms of
law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/23.5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17788/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REQUISITION AS
PER FORM-24 SENT BY RERA TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.04.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
24.04.2024
