IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24633 of 2006(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.K.P.SURENDRAN, S/O.ANANDAKURUP, AGED 51 YEARS, `VYKHARI', GOLF LINK ROAD, CHEVAYOOR, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUMOD SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL SMT.A.LOWSY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.Y.IRRIGATION PROJECTION DIVISION, PERAMBRA, CALICUT. 2. THE GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NELLIKODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTAQUE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24633/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE DATED 19/08/2006. P2 : COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt.) NO.1106/01 DATED 27/10/01. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1A : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO PETITIONER'S LATE FATHER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24633 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The amount sought to be recovered is the loss alleged to have been caused by petitioner's father, while he was working as Assistant Engineer, Kuttiyadi Irrigation Project, Peruvannamuzhi during the period from 21/04/1961 to 16/06/1969. In other words, the impugned action or inaction, which led to the liability, is 4 decades old. Petitioner's father retired from service in the year 1977 and he died in 2001. Liability could not be determined or realised from the delinquent employee during his service or after his retirement but before is death. In a similar case this Court cancelled the demand against the legal heirs for the simple reason that legal heirs will not be able to defend the action of this nature taken after 30-40 years of the incident. In this case also recovery is initiated against the son of the delinquent engineer after four decades, which I feel is arbitrary. This Court finds no justification for the respondents to proceed against the legal heirs of the delinquent employee at this distance of time. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the demand is quashed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg