Allowed

Gopalakrishna Pillai v. District Collector

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016WP(C)/9615/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the respondents and the Official Liquidator to sell the immovable properties of the third respondent (a Cooperative Society) within six months to recover dues awarded to the petitioner under a Labour Court award, rejecting the delay caused by financial constraints.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents and Official Liquidator to sell third respondent's immovable properties within six months and discharge liabilities including petitioner's dues within three months thereafter.

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9615 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKETHAYYIL VEEDU, NOW RESIDING AT REKHA BHAVAN, PERUMON P.O., PANAYAM, PERINADU, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM.

¶12

3. THE THRIKKADAVUR PRINTING INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.51NDQ 169. PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY LIQUIDATOR.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 9615 of 2016 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CLAIM PETITION NO.46/2006 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 30/10/2013.

¶20

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 11/2/2014 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR RECOVERING THE AMOUNT UNDER EXT.P1.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). NO. 9615 OF 2016

¶28

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by

¶31

inordinate delay in recovering the amount due to the petitioner from the third respondent pursuant to Ext. P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, in C.P.No.46/2006 dated 30.10.2013. According to the petitioner, as per the award, substantial amounts were due to the petitioner. Since the amounts were not paid by the third respondent, petitioner has moved the Labour authorities, consequent to which requisition was issued to proceed against the third respondent invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Thereupon, demand under Sections 7 and 34 were issued by the Revenue Recovery Tahsildar, which are dated 11.02.2014. According to the petitioner, thereafter no action is initiated, so as to sell off the property to settle the dues to the

¶32

W.P.(C). NO. 9615 OF 2016 2

¶33

petitioner. It is in this background seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent wherein the contentions put forth by the petitioner with respect to his claim under Ext. P1 award is admitted. According to the second respondent, action was initiated to attach the movable properties belonging to the third respondent. Since the society is in financial constraints, official liquidator has taken possession of the properties, consequent to which directions were issued by the Official Liquidator to first proceed against the movable articles of the third respondent and thereafter proceed against the immovable properties. It is for the said reason according to the second respondent, further action pursuant to Section 34 demand was not proceeded with. Therefore, according to the second respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to get reliefs for the time being, till such time the entire proceedings are completed by the Official Liquidator, who has taken possession of the immovable properties of

¶35

W.P.(C). NO. 9615 OF 2016 3

¶36

the third respondent.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Even though notice is served on the third respondent, there is no appearance for the third respondent.

¶38

The question revolves around Ext.P1 award passed. The petitioner is entitled to get as of right the benefits of the said award, since the award has become final. It is thereupon that the petitioner initiated action and requisitions were made to recover the amount under Ext. P1 award, by resorting to revenue recovery action. It is a well settled proposition of law, Section 7 as well as Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are simultaneous provisions, which are not dependent on each other. Both the proceedings can be initiated together. Therefore, the contention raised by the second respondent that on the basis of direction issued by the Official Liquidator of the third respondent, the proceedings against immovable property are put off, cannot be sustained at all. The said

¶39

W.P.(C). NO. 9615 OF 2016 4

¶40

action and the direction is against the provisions of law, contained under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. If at all there are proceedings for liquidating the third respondent, it is for the Liquidating Officer to proceed, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, to sell off the properties and wipe off the liabilities accrued against the third respondent. Keeping the proceedings in abeyance is putting the petitioner to difficulties and thereby depriving the right of the petitioner to live decently as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to sell off the property of the third respondent, and discharge its liabilities, including that of the petitioner. I think it is only appropriate that a time limit is fixed for undertaking such an exercise.

¶41

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents as well as the Official Liquidator under the third respondent to sell off the immovable properties of the third respondent within six months from the date of receipt

¶42

W.P.(C). NO. 9615 OF 2016 5

¶43

of a copy of this judgment and take necessary steps to wipe off the liabilities created against the third respondent, and in favour of the first petitioner, without any further delay, and at any rate, within three months thereafter.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶46

DCS

Gopalakrishna Pillai v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishna Pillai v. District Collector

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

Saneesh A.S Vs Sri Muhammed Y Safeerulla

Kuruvila Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Haseena E Vs Anzar

G.Vijayan Vs Branch Manager, the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

T.Sasirekha Vs Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Hotels and Resorts Ltd.

M/S. Manning China Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Customs