IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 2076 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.CHANDRESEKHARA KURUP,KURUMBELIL HOUSE, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 2076 of 2009-V ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 revenue recovery notices issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act . The case of the petitioner in brief are as follows: Petitioner is an ex-serviceman discharged on 31.1.1987. While so Exts.P2 and P3 notices were issued to him. It is stated to be in his capacity as surety to one P.K. Peethambaran. According to the petitioner he is not a surety. Petitioner obtained copy of the security bond and the documents filed by Sri.P.K. Peethambaran under the Right to information Act. Ext.P5 is the copy of the certificate dated 22.12.1995. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent stating that petitioner was the surety for Sri.P.K. Peethambaran who was a registered dealer doing WPC No.2076/2009 -2- business in timber. He is no more. It is stated that Ext.R2a bond is executed and Exts.R2a to R2c are produced. Ext.R2c is stated to be the statement given by the petitioner owning his liability. Petitioner has filed his reply to the allegations. According to him, the statements are not in his handwriting or signature. The issue raised is whether the petitioner is liable as a surety. On the one hand, petitioner contends that he has not executed surety bond. He denies his signature. In the counter affidavit the case of the petitioner is disputed. In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution it may not be appropriate for me to consider and decide the question as to whether the petitioner is liable as surety and whether petitioner has executed surety bond. In other words, it is a disputed question of fact. I feel that the petitioner has to seek his remedy in appropriate forum. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek reliefs in appropriate forum, the writ petition is WPC No.2076/2009 -3- disposed of. In order to facilitate the petitioner to seek reliefs it is ordered that the interim order will continue for two months from today. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS