IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27092 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH ALEXANDER PETER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE PETER, THEKKEVEEDU, NEAR HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. (RETIRED BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATTAPPANA) BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SMT.P.DEEPA MOHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERATE, L.M.S.COMPOUND, (LONDON MISSIONERY SOCIETY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. R. RENJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P(C) 27092/2011 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.11953/EST.D1/09/CRD DATED 22-9-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4-10-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL JJ /TRUE COPY/ K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 27092 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th October, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner who has retired from service as a Block Development Officer on 31-7-2007 complains that he has been served with Ext.P1 proceedings fixing an amount of Rs.5,64,936/- as liability on him and that steps are afoot to recover the said amount from his retirement benefits. According to the petitioner, fixing of such liability after the expiry of three years of his retirement is not permissible in law and therefore he seeks the issue of appropriate orders quashing Ext.P1. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 explanation to the allegations in Ext.P1, he has filed this writ petition apprehending recovery of the amounts by taking recourse to Revenue Recovery proceedings. 2. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also. 3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the same is only a show cause notice. What the petitioner has been directed is to show cause why the decision to recover the amount specified therein should not be implemented. He has also been granted fifteen days time to submit his explanation. The petitioner has already WPC 27092/2011 2 submitted his explanation, as evidenced by Ext.P2. Further proceedings have to be issued on a consideration of the objections of the petitioner set out in Ext.P2. 4. In the above circumstances the apprehension of the petitioner that the amount would be recovered from his DCRG or by initiating action under the Revenue Recovery Act has no substance. The proceedings initiated as per Ext.P1 show cause notice has to reach a conclusion by the issue of appropriate proceedings on a consideration of Ext.P2. There is no justification to warrant a conclusion that any action to recover the amount would be taken before the completion of such proceedings. In view of the above, the only relief to which the petitioner is entitled at present, is a direction to the second respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner contained in Ext.P2 and to pass appropriate orders thereon. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner in Ext.P2 and to pass appropriate orders in the matter, after hearing the petitioner also. Orders as indicated above shall WPC 27092/2011 3 be issued as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge