IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25624 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. NEELAKANDA PILLAI, AGED 52, RESIDING AT NEELAKANDA VILAS, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DIST. MANAGING PARTNER AUTHORISED RATION WHOLESALE DEALER A.W.D. NO.43, KANJIRAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ETTUMANUR BLOCK PANCHAYAT, ETTUMANUR, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25624 of 2009(W) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 14.11.2005 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTEND ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 10.8.2009 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 25624 of 2009 -W ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are proceeding with the coercive steps, invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act, without actually fixing the liability and even without issuing any notice in this regard to the petitioner. 2. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent says that the second respondent is not the competent authority for considering the representation submitted by the petitioner and that, if the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach the requisitioning authority, making clear that the said respondent has moved the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act only on the basis of such requisition made by the third respondent. 3. As a matter of fact, nothing is stated from the part of the third respondent, despite the service of notice and on what basis the liability has been fixed upon the petitioner is not discernible from the materials on record, including the notice issued under the W.P(C) No. 25624 of 2009 -W 2 Revenue Recovery Act. It is well settled that the steps under the Revenue Recovery Act can be initiated and pursued only after fixing the liability under the relevant provisions of law. In the above circumstances, the respondents having failed to justify the proceedings under Ext. P3, the same is hereby set aside. However, this will not preclude the third respondent from pursuing further steps, so as to have the liability fixed up on the petitioner, if any, after issuing notice and giving an opportunity of being heard in this regard. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab