IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17538 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- M.A.NAZAR,AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.ALIYAR KUNJU MALIEKKALPARAMBIL,M.L.ROAD,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.N.JAMES AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR (RR),KOTTAYAM. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER,KOTTAYAM. 3. K.S.R.T.C,REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,KOTTAYAM BUS STATION,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17538 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to release the attachment over the petitioner's property. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was the contractor for running the comfort station maintained by the respondents at their Kottayam Bus Stand. It would appear that default was committed and finally revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by Ext.P1 for realising an amount of RS.4,33,441/-. Petitioner contested the demand by filing Ext.P2 objection. 3. Again when the matter was proceeded with, he filed WP(C) No.24181/06 before this Court and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment where this Court held that the petitioner is not to be made liable for licence fee of Rs.1,80,000/- for the period 1/1/2004 to 31/3/2004. Further, it was also held that the petitioner is entitled to be refunded Rs.15,571, in relation to the period 1999-2000. Finally, it was ordered that on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, respondents will WPC 17538/09 :2 : quantify the liability of the petitioner in the light of the findings in the judgment. Referring to Ext.P6, it is stated that the petitioner remitted Rs. 2 lakhs and the petitioner complains that the respondents did not take any further action in the mater and at the same time, the attachment effected pursuant to Ext.P1 is still maintained. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed with the prayer mentioned above. 4. A statement has been filed by the respondents. From Annexure A document produced along with the statement, it would appear that the case of the respondents is that an amount of Rs.2,33,441/- is still remaining outstanding from the petitioner. However, a closer scrutiny of the Annexure shows that the respondents have quantified the liability without deducting the amount which was found to be not due from the petitioner as per Ext.P3 judgment of this Court. Therefore, if the licence fee of Rs.1,80,000/- claimed for the period 1/1/2004 to 31/3/2004 and Rs.15,571/- is deducted as ordered in the judgment, balance amount due from the petitioner, even going by Annexure A statement, will be only Rs.37,870/-. 5. Once this amount is paid, necessarily, the attachment WPC 17538/09 :3 : effected over the petitioner's property pursuant to Ext.P1 has to be lifted and for this purpose, the KSRTC is bound to issue a non liability certificate. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That the petitioner shall, remit an amount of Rs.37,870/- with the District Transport Officer, KSRTC Kottayam and on remittance thereof, the said officer shall issue a non liability certificate. Thereupon, it will be open to the petitioner to produce the non liability certificate to the 1st respondent, who shall lift the attachment effected on the petitioner's property pursuant to Ext.P1. (2) Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp