IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29465 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- PUTHUR PANCHAYTH AGRICULTURAL AND NON AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD-R NO.1240, PUTHUR, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 29465 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge is against Revenue recovery steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount sought to be realised pertains to arrears of licence fee due to the 1st respondent Corporation from the petitioner Society with respect to a lodge building owned by the 1st respondent, which was taken by the petitioner Society for running on the basis of rent. The petitioner society had taken the lodge building on rental basis in the year 2009, by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement of licence executed. The period of licence as per Ext.P1 is from 23.1.2009 to 22.1.2010. According to the petitioner, the rental amount was paid except for the months of March and April, 2009 out of the period of licence. Contention of the petitioner is that eventhough the agreement of licence was entered upon, they could not start functioning of the lodge because of the poor condition of the building, which required extensive repair. It is WP(C)29465/2010 2 stated that functioning of the lodge could be started only in May, 2009, and therefore the petitioner could not remit rent during the months of March and April, 2009. Under the above circumstances petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Standing Committee of the 1st respondent Corporation seeking exemption from payment of rent for the above said two months. Through Exts. P2 and P4 the petitioner had also submitted request for providing various amenities in the building in question It is contended that without considering such requests, the revenue recovery steps were initiated at the behest of respondents 1 and 2, on the basis of Ext.P5 notice issued by the 3rd respondent. It is contended that the amount now demanded is not liable to be paid since the petitioner has not occupied and conducted business in the building in question. Hence the petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that, the petitioner was at an obligation to make payment of rent from the months of March, 2009 onwards as per the terms of Ext.P1 agreement. Even WP(C)29465/2010 3 assuming that there occurred any delay in starting business of running the lodge, it could not be “ attributable against respondents 1 and 2” and the petitioner is not entitled for any waiver in payment of rent on that count. 3. Before resolving the controversy regarding liability for payment of the defaulted amounts, I notice that Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner seeking waiver in payment of rent for two months was not considered by any competent authority in the 1st respondent Corporation. Whether the petitioner had actually conducted business during the relevant period and as to whether there any waiver can be provided are matters which need be considered by respondents 1 and 2 and a decision thereof is highly warranted. Principles of natural justice demand that a reasonable decision is taken on the basis of such representation before proceeding with coercive steps of recovery. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P3 and to take a decision thereof, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall WP(C)29465/2010 4 be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Recovery steps now initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 notice shall be kept in abeyance till such decision is taken by respondents 1 and 2. Needless to say that realisation of the amount under demand will be subject to final outcome of such decision which will be taken as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C)29465/2010 5