IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8026 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOIDEENKUTTY P.O.,S/O.LATE P.A.SIDDIQUE, AGED 46 YEARS,, BUSINESSMAN, PALLAKKAL HOUSE, PUSHPAGIRI, TALIPARAMBA PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KSEB VYDYUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KANNUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R1 & R2 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 8026 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued by the respondents resorting to the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner, contending that the dues if any are time-barred. 2. The liability which forms the subject matter of the Revenue Recovery proceedings is in respect of the alleged breach of contract made by the deceased father of the petitioner in the year 1988-89. The case of the petitioner is that, the contract was given in the year 1988 and that the time stipulated for completion of the work in connection with the construction of a compound wall on 31.08.1988. Eventhough the date of termination of contract is not mention anywhere in the proceedings, it shows that there was a re-tender on 17.12.1998 and the liability of the deceased father of the petitioner was fixed on 11.10.1999, followed by the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated thereafter. But even before submitting the necessary requisition under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the original defaulter, i.e., the father of the petitioner took his last breath on 03.09.2008. This being the position, the proceedings now taken by the respondents are not correct or sustainable, being barred by the law 2 WP(C) No. 8026/2010 of limitation, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on the point that the time-barred debts cannot be sought to be realised resorting to the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as made clear in State of Kerala Vs. V.R.Kallianikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146]. The petitioner has got yet another contention that the petitioner has not inherited any property from the deceased father and this being the position, no liability can be fixed on the shoulders of the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed before this Court that the question of limitation is not applicable. The description of the facts and figures in the counter affidavit are more with reference to the terms of the contract. Nothing is given therein as to the specific contention on the question of limitation, but for a vague mention as stated above. Similarly, nothing is given in the counter affidavit as to the properties, if any, which originally belonged to the defaulter and came to the hands of the petitioner, as one of the legal heirs. 4. Considering the pleadings and materials on record, particularly in the absence of any specific contention for the respondents that the recovery proceedings were initiated on time, so as to cross the hurdle of limitation, this Court finds that the proceedings are much barred by limitation and hence cannot be enforced under any circumstance, in view of 3 WP(C) No. 8026/2010 the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra. In the said circumstance, the impugned proceedings (Exts.P1 and P2) are set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc