Disposed

District Transport Officer v. Abdul Razak

Kerala HC7 Sept 2012RP/529/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition sought review of a judgment disposing of a writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings. The court directed the review petitioner to quantify the balance liability, if any, due by the first respondent for the occupation period, and to give credit for any deposits made before recovering dues.

What did the court decide?

Directed the review petitioner to quantify the balance liability due from the first respondent for the occupation period after giving credit for any deposits.

District Transport Officer Vs Abdul Razak — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/16TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 529 of 2012 () IN WPC/759/2010

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.759/2010 DATED 20-01-2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:

¶8

DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶9

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

¶12

ABDUL RAZAK

¶13

S/O UMMER, NAFEEZA MANZIL, MOORIYAD KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 643.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-679 532.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.A.REZIYA

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP.529/12

APPENDIX

ANNEXURES

A- TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 19.7.04 EXECUTED BETWEEN KSRTC AND 1ST RESPONDENT

¶25

B- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 7.8.04 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER

¶26

C- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO.G1-1467/04/EKM DATED 19.10.04 SENT BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶27

D- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE-C NOTICE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶28

E- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 10.3.05 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶29

F- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.G1-1467/04/EKM DATED 28.3.05 ISSUED BY REVIEW PETITIONER

¶30

G- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT PERTAINING TO THE SERVICE OF ANNEXURE-F TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶31

/true copy/ PA To Judge

¶32

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶33

R.P.529/2012 in W.P.(C).759/2010

¶34

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2012

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C).759/2010.

¶37

The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein. In the writ petition, he challenged the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the review petitioner which, according to him, was for the amounts which were not due from him. Although the review petitioner had entered appearance, counter affidavit was not filed. Therefore, accepting the averments in the writ petition as uncontradicted, the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 20.1.2012 with the following directions:-

¶38

“Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 4^th respondent will consider whether the petitioner had surrendered the premises as claimed by him and whether the premises was tendered in favour of any other person. On such enquiry, if it is found that the KSRTC has not suffered any loss petitioner should not be made liable for the dues for any period subsequent to the surrender. The 4^th respondent shall examine the matter as above and take a decision in this respect as

¶39

R.P.529/12

¶40

¶41

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. On such decision if no loss has been caused to the KSRTC, the KSRTC shall recall the revenue recovery requisition, which led to the issuance of Exts.P3 and P4 notices. It is directed that until the 4^th respondent decides the matter as above, every proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 will be kept in abeyance.”

¶42

This Review Petition is filed explaining reason for not filing the counter affidavit and producing AnnexuresA to G and contending that for the period from 19.7.2004 when the agreement was entered into till 28.3.2005 when the Stall was surrendered by the first respondent, amounts are due to the Corporation for the licence fee and other dues in terms of Annexure-A agreement. Although this claim of the review petitioner is disputed by the first respondent, still if any amount is due from the first respondent, after adjusting the amounts, if any, deposited by the first respondent, the excess amount due is liable to be paid by the first respondent. However, since the liability has been disputed by him, necessarily that liability will have to be quantified by the review petitioner with notice to the first respondent.

¶43

R.P.529/12

¶44

¶45

Therefore, I direct that while considering the matter as directed in the judgment dated 20.1.2012, review petitioner will also quantify the balance liability, if any, due from the first respondent for the period when he was keeping the room in his occupation and if there is any such liability, it will be open to the review petitioner to recover the same after giving credit to the deposits, if any, made by the first respondent.

¶46

Clarifying the position as above, the Review Petition is disposed of.

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶48

mrcs

District Transport Officer v. Abdul Razak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Transport Officer v. Abdul Razak

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

Rocky V.A. Vs Vakkachan

The Corporation of Trivandrum Vs v.G.Shanthini Devi

K.Abdurahiman Vs State of Kerala and Others

Yousaf Vs the District Collector

Vasudevan Pillai Vs Govt. of Kerala

K.S.Prasad Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.