High Court quashed order declining refund of security deposit. Court directed respondent Secretary to reconsider petitioners representation and afford hearing within two months.
Quashed Ext.P4 order and directed 3rd respondent Secretary to reconsider petitioners representation after hearing within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/24TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 3414 of 2016 (B)
PETITIONER(S):
1. K.KARUNAKARAN KOZHITHODATHU VEEDU, PANTHRANDUMURI TAGAR, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM - 20.
2. P.AMBIKA DEVI,
BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER KOLLAM - 691 001.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT (TAXES)(A)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4. THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.94, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM - 691 524.
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.A.JANI(KOLLAM) R3 BY ADV. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH PETER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3414 of 2016 (B)
APPENDIX
=========
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.04-2898/99 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.21.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.20-11-2008 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.824/2015/TAX DEPT. DT.06-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
DST
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners along with their son one
Sri. K.K. Binu and a certain Sri. Omanakuttan are stated to be the licensee of an FL-1 licensed shop in the Chathannur Range under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077. The petitioners assert that the shop was auctioned in their favour for an annual rent of 61,61,611/- and that they have deposited an amount of 18,48,483/- towards security deposit as early as in the year 1999.
W.P.(C) No. 3414 of 2016
security and the Authorities thereafter directed the petitioners to replenish this amount that was adjusted from the security deposit. The petitioners allege that when they were unable to do so, Ext.P1 order was issued forfeiting the entire security deposit remitted by them and cancelling the licence. The petitioners challenged Ext.P1 before this Court which led to Ext.P3 judgment which was dismissed and proceedings were initiated against them under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') .
allowed to compound the offence on payment of `19,75,028/-.
W.P.(C) No. 3414 of 2016
liability fastened against them. When this representation was not considered, the petitioners moved this Court again, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment under which the 3rd respondent therein, who is also the 3rd respondent herein, was directed to consider the representation of the petitioners, shown as Ext.P6 therein, within a period of two weeks.
W.P.(C) No. 3414 of 2016
-: 4 :-
petitioners have challenged Ext.P4 in this writ petition on various grounds.
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
W.P.(C) No. 3414 of 2016
-: 5 :-
deposit are to be refunded to them. This is the underpinning of all their claims in this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 3414 of 2016
case at hand, the petitioners were not acquitted;
but were allowed to compound the offence under the terms of a valid Government Order. Ext.P4 does not
say how this one circumstance would materially alter the way in which the law would apply in the case of the petitioners. It is also pertinent that Ext.P4 does not refer to the order issued by the authorities permitting the petitioners to compound the offence. This is pertinent because, under the scheme for compounding, the petitioners have remitted an amount of `19,75,028/- towards the arrears that were found due against them and
therefore, the petitioners may be justified in contending that once the liability against them, that was earlier determined and adjudicated, were remitted by them the security deposit need not have been forfeited by the authorities.
W.P.(C) No. 3414 of 2016
-: 7 :-
the security deposit was forfeited by the authority
as early as in the year 2000. However, the matter does not end there because as per Ext.P3 judgment, the forfeiture of the security deposit was the sole issue that was directed to be considered by this Court. In such view of the matter, it would have been only appropriate that the competent authority had considered the specific contentions of the petitioners that they have remitted the entire amount under the scheme of amnesty and, therefore, that the forfeiture was unnecessary and illegal in terms of the ratio in V.K. Asokan's case (Supra).
and in a summation of my observations above, I deem it only apposite that I quash Ext.P4 to pave way for a fresh consideration of the petitioners' representation in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment. I therefore, quash Ext.P4 and
W.P.(C) No. 3414 of 2016
-: 8 :-
direct the competent Secretary of the 3rd respondent to reconsider the representation of the petitioners,
which led to Ext.P4 order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
DST
//True copy// P.A. To Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to refund of security deposit after compounding offence under amnesty scheme.
Whether forfeiture of security deposit was illegal in light of remittance of arrears under compounding scheme.
Whether direction to reconsider petitioners representation should be issued after following ratio in precedent case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.K. Asokan and Others v. Assistant Excise Commissioner and OthersRelied on¶64
V.K. Asokan and Others v. Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.KARUNAKARAN
P.AMBIKA DEVI
THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER KOLLAM
THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
STATE OF KERALA
THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
