Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013 2ND MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 1591 of 2013 (Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- 1. GABS INDUSTRIES KOCHI 18 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.A.BHAGYAM, AGED 7 YEARS, D/O APPEY, RESIDING AT GEETHALAYAM.T.D. ROAD,ERNAKULAM 2 K.A. BHAGYAM AGED 7 YEARS D/O APPEY, RESIDING AT GEETHALAYAM,T.D. ROAD,ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.N.C.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD 3 KERALA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,MARKETING KADAVANTHARA,KOCHI-20 R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MNS WP(C).No. 1591 of 2013 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.B11/2010/47538/7 DATED 31 07.2010 VIDE FILE NO.E7-01/10-11/SIDCO ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 1 10.2012 VIDE FILE NO.E7-01/10- 11/SIDCO ISSUED BYTAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 &3 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8 10.2009 IN S.A 774/1995(A) OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF R.R NOTICE DATED 20 12.2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ......................................... WP(C)No.1591 of 2013 ......................................... Dated 22nd January, 2013 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the third respondent.
2. Petitioners are challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against them at the instance of the third respondent for recovery of amounts due to them towards value of the raw materials supplied by third respondent. It is seen that when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, petitioners filed O.S.No.100 of 1988 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The matter was finally decided by this Court in S.A.No.774 of 1995, evidenced by Ext.P4. In that judgment, though this Court held the suit to be not maintainable, this Court reserved the right of the petitioners to question the validity of the revenue recovery action on account of limitation. It is also seen that the petitioners raised that contention before the District Collector. District Collector, however rejected Wpc 1591/13 2 the contention and passed Ext.P5 order. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Reading of Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector shows that he has not dealt with the contention raised by the petitioners and on the other hand, overruled the objection merely stating that the report of third respondent shows that the debt is not time barred. In my view, this order reflects the total non-application of mind and for that reason, Ext.P5 deserves to be set aside.
4. I accordingly set aside Ext.P5 and direct the second respondent to decide the objection raised by the petitioners afresh. This, the second respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition. It is directed that in the meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioners will stand stayed.
5. Petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment and Wpc 1591/13 3 writ petition before the second respondent. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case and it is entirely for the second respondent to decide the issues raised. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE lgk