Quashed

Radhika Jayan v. the Intelligence Office (Ib)

Kerala HC8 Oct 2012WP(C)/8929/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order detaining her husband in Civil Prison for tax defaults under the Revenue Recovery Act. The Court held the order violated natural justice as it was passed without hearing the defaulter and set aside the detention order along with confirming revisional orders.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P13 passed by the District Collector detaining the husband in Civil Prison, and Exts.P17 and P18 confirming revisionary orders, were set aside.

Radhika Jayan Vs the Intelligence Office (Ib) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8929 of 2007 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RADHIKA JAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. E.S.JAYAN, ELANJIKANDAN HOUSE MANAVALASSERY TALUK, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (I.B.),

¶11

ERNAKULAM, O/O. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶12

(INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶14

COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE

¶17

THRISSUR.

¶18

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

¶19

COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶21

6. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,

¶22

GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

R1 TO 6 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0810-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WPC NO.8929/07

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 45(A) OF THE K.G.S.T.ACT 1963 DATED 1.3.2005 ISSUD BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.3.2005 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.IBE.1/0R.1/200506/IR.3/2000-01 DATED 29.4.05 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 7.6.2005 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 1.2.2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.3.2007.

¶36

EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.3.2007.

¶37

EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION DATED 10.3.2007 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXT.P11: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 5.3.2007 ISSUED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER.

¶39

EXT.P12: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER DATED 12.3.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXT.P13: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.G2-57827/05 DATED 7.3.2007 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶41

WP(C) No.8929/07

¶42

-2-

¶43

EXT.P14: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 13.3.2007 FILED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXT.P15: PHOTOCOPY OF THE DIRECTION PETITION DATED 13.3.2007 FILED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶45

EXT.P16; PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶46

EXT.P17: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(B) 7-12009/07 DATED 27.9.07 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶47

EXT.P18: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER, GO(MS) NO.216/08/RD DATED 17.7.2008 PASSED BY THE REVENUE (H) DEPARTMENT.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8929 OF 2007

¶52

===================

¶53

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2012

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

Petitioner's husband Sri.E.S.Jayan is a defaulter of the KGST dues for the year 1999-2000. It appears that in a recovery proceedings, finally the immovable property of 2.5 cents belonging to the petitioners' husband was also sold. That was insufficient to liquidate the liability and finally proceedings under Section 65 were initiated. District Collector issued notice and counsel on behalf of the petitioner's husband filed his vakalath. Rejecting that vakalath, the District Collector straight away passed Ext.P13 order dated 7/3/2007 to detain her husband in Civil Prison. It was thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 16/3/2007, her husband was released from detention. Subsequently, revision filed under Section 83(1) was rejected by the Land Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P17 and the second revision filed under Section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P18. It is challenging Exts.P13, P17 and P18, the writ petition is now filed.

¶56

:2 :

¶57

WPC.No.8929/07

¶58

A reading of Ext.P13, the first order passed by the District Collector itself show that, on 7/3/2007, when the case was scheduled for the appearance of the defaulter, on his behalf, the counsel entered appearance and filed vakalath, That was rejected and the District Collector passed Ext.P13 order on that day itself. In other words, Ext.P13 order was passed by the District Collector without allowing the petitioner's husband to raise his contentions or produce proof in support of his case that he was not liable to be detained. It is this order which has been confirmed by the revisional authorities as per Exts.P17 and P18.

¶59

In my view, irrespective of the merits of the contentions raised by both sides, Ext.P13 order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For that reason itself, the order has to be set aside. Accordingly I set aside Ext.P13 and consequently Exts.P17 and P18 orders passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government are also set aside. However, this judgment shall be without prejudice to the right of the District Collector to proceed afresh against the defaulter in accordance with law and after affording him an

¶60

WPC.No.8929/07

¶61

:3 :

¶62

opportunity to raise his contentions.

¶63

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶64

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶65

Radhika Jayan v. the Intelligence Office (Ib)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Jayan v. the Intelligence Office (Ib)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaleela Vs Manager, Bank of Maharashtra

M/S.Wipro Limited Vs the State of Kerala

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Siju Vs C.Vijayamohan

Andrews Kattikkana Vs the Deputy Tahsildar and Others

Edward Earth Movers Vs State of Kerala and Another