Quashed

S.Venugopala Das v. Director of Civil Supplies

Kerala HC25 Aug 2008WP(C)/13741/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee, challenged Revenue Recovery Notices issued without prior notice. The Single Judge quashed the notices for lack of procedural due process, allowing recovery proceedings only after notice is given.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Revenue Recovery Notices Exts. P5 and P6; respondents permitted to proceed after giving notice and opportunity of hearing.

S.Venugopala Das Vs Director of Civil Supplies — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 13741 of 2008(J)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER: PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

S.VENUGOPALA DAS, S/O.C.SANKARAN.

¶10

AGED 61 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT SECRETARY COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES RESIDING AT T.C. 18/1809 (I) "SARAS" PLAVILA, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.X.XAVIER SRI.K.BAIJU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.\

¶15

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶16

VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) 13741 of 2008

¶21

Dated: AUGUST 25, 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioner submits that he was an Assistant Secretary in the office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and that he retired from service on 31.3.2002. It is stated that he had no liability outstanding and Ext.P4 no liability certificate was also issued to him. According to the petitioner all benefits including DCRG were released to him on the footing that he does not have any liability to the Department.

¶24

It is stated that despite all the above, he was issued Exts.P5 and P6 notices under the Revenue Recovery Act seeking to realise an amount of Rs.8,94,850/-. The main ground urged in this writ petition is that the said notices were issued without any notice to him.

¶25

¶26

WP(C) 13741/08

¶27

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, points out that on deputation basis, petitioner was working in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and that Exs.P5 and P6 were issued on the basis of the requisition issued by the said Corporation.

¶28

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither Ext.P5 nor Ext.P6 disclose on whose requisition the recovery proceedings are initiated and, if that be so, I am not in a position to find fault with the petitioner in not impleading the Civil Supplies Corporation. 5. A reading of the aforesaid revenue recovery notices shows that substantial liability is sought to be enforced against the petitioner. Any such enforcement of liability can only be with notice to the petitioner and his liability has to be quantified on that basis so that the petitioner also will have an opportunity to offer his explanation and resist the liability. In this case, since such an opportunity has not been given to the petitioner, I am not in a position to

¶29

¶30

WP(C) 13741/08

¶31

sustain Exts.P5 and P6. Exts.P5 and P6 will therefore stand quashed.

¶32

This writ petition is disposed of clarifying that it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner after giving him notice and opportunity of hearing before the liability, if any, is quantified.

¶33

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-

S.Venugopala Das v. Director of Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venugopala Das v. Director of Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pathu @ Pathumma Vs Niveditha P. Haran & 2 Others

Shazna Vs T.P.Senkumar

Muzhappilangadan Manoj Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Narayanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Ravikumar Vs the Authorised Officer, Sbt

Mathai E.V Vs Roy