Petitioners are challenging Ext.P13 order issued by the Government pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P9 judgment in WP(C) No.36402/03 dated 19/11/2003. The facts leading to the case are the following:-

The 5th respondent availed loan from 6th respondent Bank and on account of default, the Bank authorized the recovery authorities to recover the arrears by resort to revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount due to the Bank was Rs.5,57,908/-with interest thereon from the date of recommendation for revenue recovery. The property was notified for sale on 16/01/2002. In the auction 1st petitioner purchased the property for Rs.1,07,500/-. Since the highest bid amount was far below the debt amount, the recovery authority was bound to defer the sale to another date in terms of Section 50(1) of the RR Act. However, the sale was proceeded with and the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the sale in violation of the above provision. It is only after confirmation of the sale, the 6th respondent, which is a public sector Bank, came to know about the proceedings that led to sale of 55 cents of land and a building thereon belonging to the defaulter at Thodupuzha at a ridiculously low price leading to heavy loss to the Bank. It was found that the purchaser of the property in auction in revenue sale, namely 1st petitioner, was none other than the Ex-Branch Manager of the 6th respondent Bank, who took voluntary retirement. The Bank alleged that sale was conducted without proper notice and it was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the RR Act, besides collusion between RR authorities and the purchaser. The Bank filed a writ petition in this Court. This Court while hearing the said writ petition felt that the claim of the Bank was quite genuine and apparently sale of the property situated in a relatively well known area of Thodupuzha town at below the market price is illegal, which probably would have been the result of collusion between the purchaser and the RR authorities. Even though the statutory remedy against confirmation of sale by the Revenue Divisional Officer is a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner as provided under Section 83 of the Act, in order to avoid controversy in future, this Court felt that Government should be directed to issue instructions to Revenue Recovery Authorities to proceed for sale of properties under the RR Act only after issuing notice to the beneficiary organization, whose debt is sought to be recovered in such proceeding. Besides this, since Government is the ultimate authority under the statute, which has the authority even to reverse the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner under Section 83(2) of the Act, this Court directed the Government to consider the objections raised by the Bank against confirmation of sale and the Government was also directed to issue general instructions to the revenue recovery authorities under the Act to proceed with auction sales only after issuing notice to the beneficiary organization for whom revenue recovery is taken. Pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment, the Government has heard the parties and after issuing general instructions to RR authorities in terms of the directions, the Government proceeded to consider the legality and propriety of the sale confirmed in this case. Government after hearing all the parties found that there is clear violation of Section 50 of the RR Act in as much as the sale was not deferred under the mandatory provisions of the said section. As already stated the price at which the property sold is for Rs.1,07,500/-as against the total liability of Rs.5,57,908/-due to the Bank as on 14/05/2001. Government further found that no notice of auction sale of the property was published at the site of the property. It is clear from Ext.P13 that the Government was convinced about the impropriety, illegality and the apprehension of the Bank endorsed by this