IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9148 of 2006(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.BASHEER, THONIKKADAVIL HOUSE, SHORNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS & BRIDGES, NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-1. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 3.6.1999 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER CUTTING THE HINDU DATED 29.7.1999 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 31.10.2003 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.2.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 9148 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Writ Petition is filed challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of toll rentals payable by the petitioner under the agreement executed by him by which he took the right to collect toll for the Kalluthankadavu Mankavu Bridges of Kozhikode Dist. for the period 1999-2000. The main allegation of the petitioner is that amounts paid are not credited and security deposit is not adjusted. However, on going through the counter affidavit I find that this is the third Writ Petition filed by the petitioner and in between petitioner moved the Government and obtained stay orders and got instalment facility. However, petitioner is persistent defaulter of court orders and Government orders and consequently recovery is continued. I do not find any ground to interfere with recovery proceedings because liaibility is admittedly payable by the petitioner and he had in fact got instalment facility from the Government on two occasions and defaulted payment. I do not propose to consider petitioner's claim for 2 adjustment of security or any other amount held by the Government because he has violated court orders and petitioner is not entitled to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the petitioner makes full payment in terms of the demand, it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court claiming refund of any amount withheld by the respondents by way of security. W.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed directing the first respondent to proceed for recovery immediately. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3