Dismissed

Prof.Somanathan Pillai G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2019WA/2100/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal against a judgment upholding revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Financial Enterprise. The court held that disputes regarding dues should be resolved before the Registrar under the Chit Funds Act. It found no merit in the appeal since the lower court's judgment included sufficient directions to protect the appell

What did the court decide?

None. The writ appeal was dismissed against the judgment of the Single Judge which directed the petitioner to approach the Registrar.

Prof.Somanathan Pillai G. Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/20TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.2100 OF 2019

¶8

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

PROF.SOMANATHAN PILLAI G. AGED 49 YEARS, RETD. PROFESSOR, M.S.M.COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM, RESIDING AT PATTIRETHU LAKSHMI VIHAR, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 502

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL SRI.RAJAN G. GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

2 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020

¶15

3 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE, KATTANAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, GANDHI TOWER, KATTANAM,PALLICKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 503

¶16

W.A.2100/2019

¶17

¶18

4 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDR(RR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE, ACJ MANSION BUILDING, NEAR KANNAR VARKEY BRIDGE,SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 012

¶19

5 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ACCOUNTS & ENTITLEMENTS) OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNT GENERAL (A & E), PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039

¶20

6 SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A & E) PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039

¶21

7 SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 502

¶22

8 VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHIYIDOM, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690 502

¶23

9 PRINCIPAL, MILAD-E-SHERIF (MSM COLLEGE), KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 502

¶24

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU R2-3 BY SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.2100/2019

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2019

¶30

A.M. Shaffique, J

¶31

This appeal has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, by which his challenge to revenue recovery proceedings initiated in terms of Ext.P1 has been rejected and the petitioner was permitted to move the Registrar invoking the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶32

The petitioner disputes the amount demanded in terms of Ext.P1 and according to the petitioner the foreman ought to have moved the Registrar in terms of the statutory provision and therefore the revenue recovery proceedings initiated in terms of Ext.P1, is bad in law. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶33

“i) declare that Ext.P1 is unconstitutional and void;

¶34

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same;

¶35

iii) declare that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are not entitled to realise amounts, if any, due to it from the petitioner without adjudication of the said claim through arbitration as provided under the Chit Funds Act, 1982;

¶36

iv) declare that the respondents 5 and 6 are liable to release the Death cum Retirement Gratuity of Rs.12,26,950/- to the petitioner;

¶37

W.A.2100/2019

¶38

¶39

v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling directing respondents 5 and 6 to release the Death cum Retirement Gratuity of Rs.12,26,950/- to the petitioner within such time as may be fixed by this Honourable Court.”

¶40

The learned Single Judge after considering the statutory provisions, held that in so far as the dispute raised by the petitioner could be agitated before the Registrar under Section 64 of the Act, there is no reason to adjudicate such issues before this Court.

¶41

Counsel for the appellant submits that the only remedy that could be availed off by the foreman is to initiate proceedings under the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶42

In fact, revenue recovery is only one of the modes for recovery of amounts, and it is not in dispute that a notification has been issued under the the Revenue Recovery Act, permitting KSFE to recover the amount due to them as arrears of public revenue due on land. Merely for the reason that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated, does not mean that, if there is any dispute, the petitioner can challenge the same in a writ petition. It shall be open for the petitioner to approach the Registrar and even seek for a stay of recovery.

¶43

Under such circumstances, we do not think that there is any necessity to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge as sufficient directions have already been issued in the judgment, to take

¶44

W.A.2100/2019

¶45

¶46

care of the interest of the petitioner. There is no merit in the contentions raised. The writ appeal is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶49

Sd/Judge

¶50

A.M. Shaffique,

¶51

sou.

Prof.Somanathan Pillai G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof.Somanathan Pillai G. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Self Financing Pharmacy College Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Mgm College of Pharmacy Vs State of Kerala

Mgm Silver Jubilee College of Vs State of Kerala

Aji.T Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Sabir N.S Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Johnson Mathew Vs State of Kerala