IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31655 of 2006(R) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.K.THANKAPPAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.MADHAVAN, MANGLAVUMKAL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHY SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.TITUS THOMAS RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOTHATTUKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR - R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31655/2006 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDERDTD. 10/08/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE G.O. FIXING THE ARREARS AS RS.1,31,400 + INTEREST. EXT.P3,P3(A),P3(B)&P3(C): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER AND THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 29/06/2000. EXT.P5(A)(B)(C)SERIES: LETTERS DTD. 29/10/02, 21/10/03,29/10/04 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE BANK. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.25015/2000. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.378/06. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 15/09/2006 WITHOUT ANNEXURES. EXT.P8(A)&P8(B): COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS EVIDENCING SENDING OF EXHIBIT P8. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 19/09/2006 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11; COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 20/12/2006. EXT.P11(A): COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 23/01/2007. EXT.P11(B): COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 26/02/2007. EXT.P11(C): COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 26/03/2007. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DTD. 14/12/2006 PASSED IN WP(C) NO.31655/2006. /TRUE COPY/ Kss P.A.TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31655/2006 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an abkari contractor who hyad defaulted in paying the dues. In 2000, when an Amnesty scheme was announced, petitioner claimed the benefit under the Scheme and Ext.P1 order was issued by the respondents requiring the petitioner to remit Rs.2,89,399/- before 31.8.2000. 2. Petitioner contended that the quantification made in Ext.P1 was erroneous and challenged Ext.P1 before this court in O.P.No.25015/2000. In that case, this court passed Ext.P4 order directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 pending consideration of the writ petition. Accordingly, petitioner furnished Ext.P5 bank guarantee and that was kept alive during the pendency of the original petition. Finally, the WP(c).No.31655/06 2 original petition was dismissed by Ext.P6 judgment of this court and it was directed that the respondents can invoke Ext.P5 bank guarantee and realise the amount. It was also directed that respondents can claim interest due from the petitioner for the period from 31.8.2000 till the date of invocation of bank guarantee which is stated to be 7.2.2006. 3. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged Ext.P6 judgment in a writ appeal. Though he thereafter pursued his claim for waiver of interest that also did not succeed. Finally, by Ext.P10, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him for recovery or Rs.2,81,400/- and it was at that stage this writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P10. 4. The first question that arises for consideration is whether with the invocation of the bank guarantee, the liability of the petitioner for principal amount stands discharged. There is also a further question as to whether with the payment of Rs.2.8 lakhs made by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 14.12.2006, his liability towards interest as ordered in Ext.P6 judgment stands WP(c).No.31655/06 3 discharged. 5. In so far as the question whether with the payment he has already made, his liability is discharged is concerned, under the terms of the Amnesty Scheme, the respondents themselves had informed the petitioner that if he makes the payment of the amount indicated by them his liability could be settled. Though the quantification made by the respondents was disputed, ultimately, this court upheld this quantification in Ext.P6 judgment and that judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Ext.P7judgment. Thus it was the respondents who have quantified the petitioner's liability as above and it was pursuant to Ext.P4 orders passed by this court that the petitioner furnished Ext.P5 bank guarantee for the full amount. Ultimately, while upholding the quantification as above, the respondents were permitted to invoke the bank guarantee and the amount was also realised. Such realisation should be taken as in discharge of the petitioner's obligation under Ext.P1. If that be so, by realising the amount, invoking Ext.P5 bank guarantee, petitioner's liability towards the principal WP(c).No.31655/06 4 amount is thus fully discharged. 6. Now, what remains is the petitioner's liability for interest. True, the petitioner is liabile for the interest from 31.8.2000 till the date of invocation of the Bank Guarantee. Learned Government Pleader submits that, it was on 7.2.2006, the bank guarantee was invoked. Necessarily, the petitioner has the interest liability till 9.2.2006. It was towards this liability, that this court by order dated 14.12.2006 directed that the petitioner should pay Rs.2.8 lakhs . Now the only issue that survives for consideration is, whether by making payment of Rs.2.8 lakhs, petitioner has fully discharged his liability towards the interest. This is a matter of quantification by the respondents and if any amount is still due that shall be paid by the petitioner. 7. Therefore, I direct that the interest liability of the petitioner due under Ext.P6 judgment will be quantified by the 2nd respondent and intimated to the petitioner. This shall be done within four weeks from today. On such intimation the petitioner shall pay the balance amount due from him within 4 weeks thereafter. Subject to discharge of WP(c).No.31655/06 5 balance liability towards the interest if any, Ext.P10 revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner will stand quashed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.31655/06 6