Allowed

G.Arumugam v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Sept 2024WA(MD)/1517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing the writ appeal against a High Court Single Judge order requiring a deposit of Rs.18 lakh, the court held that the appellant should only deposit the original penalty of Rs.3.42 lakh due to the authorities' 17-year delay in initiating recovery.

What did the court decide?

Permit the appellant to file appeal on deposit of the original fine of Rs.3,42,382.90/- within four weeks, instead of the modified amount.

G.Arumugam Vs The District Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2024 and CMP(MD)No.11773 of 2024

G.Arumugam

... Appellant

vs.

The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Sri Vaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 21.06.2024 in W.P(MD)No.661 of 2019.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Page No.1 of 4

¶17

W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2024

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

( Judgement of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶20

Aggrieved by the order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- as a condition for preferring appeal against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 20.05.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,42,382.90/-, the petitioner in the writ petition is on appeal.

¶21

Heard Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶22

Admittedly, the fine imposed was Rs.3,42,382.90/- by order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 20.05.2002. Recovery proceedings were launched after 17 years on 02.01.2019. By that time, the fine amount with interest had swelled to Rs.18,89,947.88/-. The swelling is due to the inaction on the part of the officials concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant/petitioner shall not be burdened because of the inaction of the officials. We, therefore, modify the order of the learned Single Judge and permit the appellant/petitioner to file an appeal on deposit of the original fine amount of Rs.3,42,382.90/- within a period of four weeks from today. The

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Page No.2 of 4

¶25

W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2024

¶26

appellant/petitioner will have 30 days time to file appeal from the date of such deposit.

¶27

The Writ Appeal is ordered on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.) 04.09.2024

¶29

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

¶30

¶31

The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶32

The Tahsildar, Sri Vaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Page No.3 of 4

¶35

W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2024

¶36

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶37

bala

¶38

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.1517 of 2024 DATED : 04.09.2024

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 4

G.Arumugam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Arumugam v. The District Collector

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

R.Rengasamy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M. Kaliappan Vs The District Collector

The Additional Chief Secretary Vs T Manickavel

The State Of Tamil Nadu Vs S Preghi

A. Veeramani Vs The Commissioner

Chithra S Vs The Executive Officer