Disposed

Raghunathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016WP(C)/12355/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings for outstanding auction fees. The court allowed partial remission based on a Panchayath committee recommendation, reduced the interest rate to 9% for payment within three months, and restored the 18% rate for failure to comply.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; remission was granted based on Panchayath recommendation; interest reduced to 9% if payment made within three months, otherwise 18% applies.

Raghunathan Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12355 of 2004 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAGHUNATHAN, CHEMMARAPALLIL HOUSE, KOTTANGAL P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶13

4. PURAMATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PURAMATTOM.

¶14

R,R4 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R, BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 12355 of 2004 (U)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P2	:	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1(XXIII) DATED 1.12.2000 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P3	:	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.II DATED 1.12.2000 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.1.01 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P5		COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C4-105/2000 DATED 15.2.01 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXPT.P6		COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G1.1204/2001 DATED 26.03.01 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P7		COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C4-105/2000 DATED 12.10.01 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P8		COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.2.03 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P9		COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.3.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P10		COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.03.04 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶25

===================== W.P.(C) No.12355 of 2004 - U

¶26

====================== Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery

¶29

proceedings initiated for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,02,000/-. The above demand is made on the ground that

¶30

the petitioner, who auctioned the right to collect river sand from the Manimala river for an amount of Rs.24,04,000/Admittedly, the petitioner has remitted only Rs.18,04,000/- and the recovery now sought is for an amount of Rs.6,02,000/-. The contention of the Panchayath is that though they had permitted some remission, the same is pending approval of the Government under the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Granting of Remission to Contractors and Lessees)Rules, 1998.

¶31

The writ petition itself was filed in the year 2004

¶32

and even as of now, the Government has not considered the

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.12355 of 2004 - U

¶35

issue. In such circumstance, it is only proper that this Court consider the issue of the remission having been granted by the Panchayath. The Sub Committee of the Panchayath recommended remission of the entire balance due, which was approved by the Panchayath. However, the Panchayath, Deputy Director as is seen from Ext.P6, recommended remission as against the amounts payable for 59 days, which was determined as Rs.4,66,565/-.

¶36

In such circumstance, it is only proper that the demand be reduced by that amount. The balance remaining due to the Panchayath would be Rs.1,35,435/-. The petitioner is said to have deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.02.2005 as directed by this Court. The balance amount remaining would be an amount of Rs.35,435/-/. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also pleads that the interest may be waived, which is said to have been imposed at 18% p.a.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.12355 of 2004 - U

¶39

This Court having considering the totality of the

¶40

circumstances is not inclined to waive the interest, since the petitioner, in any event, had to satisfy the contract amount and that if at all remission was claimed, it should have been subsequent to the deposit of such amounts. The Panchayath having been deprived of such amount is definitely entitled to get interest. However, if the petitioner pays the entire amounts, within a period of three months, the Panchayath shall compute interest @ 9%, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/from the date of demand, till 25.02.2005 and for the balance amounts from the date of demand, till the date of payment, also @ 9%. The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of the judgment before the Panchayath, and the Panchayath shall compute the amounts so claimed and on such computation being made, the petitioner shall make the deposit, within the time provided herein. If no deposit is made as directed herein,

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.12355 of 2004 - U

¶43

the Panchayath would be entitled to proceed against the

¶44

petitioner for recovery @ 18% p.a. interest.

¶45

The writ petition would stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

SB/16/06/2016

// true copy //

P.A to Judge.

Raghunathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunathan v. State of Kerala

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

Anass Hassan Vs the State of Kerala

Asuntha Mohan Vs K.Sukumaran

G.S.Ammu Vs University of Kerala

K.P.Muhammed Ashraf Vs the Kannur Corporation

Yanganam Parishthithy S.Samithy Vs State of Kerala

Ruby Varghese Vs the State of Kerala