IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 7384 of 2003(D) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.S.VISALAKSHY, WIFE OF LATE R.GHANAPATHY IYER, 6/98, USHAS, Y.M.C.A. ROAD, CALICUT-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. BY SMT.T.B.RAMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 7384/2003 ORDER ON CMP NO.12884/2003 IN O.P.NO. 7384/2003 DISMISSED. 18/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO.Rt.250/83/Pn DATED 21/2/1983. P2 : COPY OF RR NOTICE DATED 15/02/1986 ISSUED AGAINST SRI.R.GANAPATHY IYER BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKKODE. P3 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 10/01/2003 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 7384 of 2003 ------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of loss caused by petitioner’s late husband to the Government while working as Superintending Engineer. Petitioner’s husband retired in 1977 and even though his retirement benefits were withheld, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, enquiry against petitioner’s husband was dropped on 21/02/1983. Even though petitioner’s husband died on 19/05/1993, no recovery was initiated during his life time. It is contended by the respondent that recovery was belated on account of the suit filed by the deceased, which got abated on his death. In any case, no recovery is permissible against the property of the petitioner. It is to be noted that in the report produced by the learned Government Pleader, it is conceded that 27 cents of land is owned and possessed by petitioner. This is not the property acquired or transferred by the deceased husband to her. In the circumstances, this original petition is allowed directing respondents not to proceed against petitioner or against her property for recovery of loss, if any, caused by her late husband. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg