Jayachandran A.N. v. Shaji Sebastian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/28TH ASWINA, 1937 W.P.(C).No. 24301 of 2015 (K) PETITIONER:

JAYACHANDRAN A.N, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, IKKARATHAKIDIYIL, PARAKADAVU, KOTTAPPURAM P O, IDUKKI.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN SRI.S.K.HARISH SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENTS:

1.

SHAJI SEBASTIAN, AVOMOOTTIL, PERINGASSERY P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI - 685595 2.

AVIRACHAN GEORGE, PAPADIYIL, THEKKUMBAGHAM, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA - 685584 3.

SALES TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI - 685584 4.

SALES TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR - 680307 5.

THE TAHSILDAR(R.R), NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI - 685583 6.

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU - 685603 7.

COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 8.

STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN R3 TO R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.10.2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [P.T.O]

W.P(C).No.

NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE PtK/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who was served with Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices under the revenue Recovery Act for Rs.45,20,997/- challenged the said notices before the authorities under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The said adjudication proceedings resulted in Ext.P13 order which directed the 6th respondent District Collector to make enquiries and find out details concerning the properties owned by respondents 1 and 2 and their surety. In Ext.P13 order, it was made clear that the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act had to proceed first against the properties identified as that of respondents 1 and 2 and their surety, and only if there was any balance amount outstanding they should proceed against the petitioner's father. In writ petitions, that were filed challenging Ext.P13 order, Ext.

P14 judgment came to be passed whereby this Court did not see any reason to interfere with Ext.P13 order but rather directed the respondents to comply with the directions in Ext.P13 order. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 6th respondent to pass orders, as directed in Ext.P13 order, notwithstanding Ext.P17 representation that is preferred by the petitioner before the 6th respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 6th respondent, before whom in Ext.P17 representation has been preferred by the petitioner, to consider and pass orders on the same after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the 6th respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 6th respondent within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to rely on documents other than those produced in the writ petition to substantiate his contentions on merits before the 6th respondent.

The writ petition is disposed as above.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/20.10.15