IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP.No. 24063 of 2001(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MERCY VARGJESE, W/O VARGHESE, RANI ESTATE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICER OF THE AGRICULTURE, KALPATTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VYTHIRI, WAYANADU DISTRICT 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. DEPUTY THASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) VYTHIRI, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. VIJULAL V. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. 24063 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. D2/186/01-02/OM ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(a) : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.07.2001ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No. 24063 of 2001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by way of Exts. P2 and P3, seeking to realize the advance amount stated as received by the petitioner, agreeing to supply 'rooted pepper cuttings'. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, in connection with implementation of a project, to raise production of spices, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the second respondent to supply the necessary pepper cuttings. It is stated that the petitioner was given an advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- by way of two installments and that the petitioner had raised 'rooted pepper cuttings' in his nursery, to be supplied to the second respondent/beneficiary, on the basis of the instructions to be issued by the concerned Agricultural Officers. It is stated that, there is absolutely no lapse or failure on the part of the petitioner to supply the pepper cutting so raised, but the 3rd respondent failed to lift the pepper cutting as per the agreement. Eventhough the petitioner approached the higher authorities, it did not yield any positive results and this being the position, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability, as sought for in Exts. P2 and P3; submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. O.P. No. 24063 of 2001 : 2 : 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with reference to the counter affidavit filed, submits that, the project sought to be implemented by the State was in furtherance of the project mooted by the Centre to promote the spices. The second respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner, who agreed to supply 35,000 'rooted pepper cuttings'. Based on this, the petitioner made an application to release the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and it was released accordingly. It was also agreed upon by the petitioner that in the case of enhancement of target if any, the pepper cuttings have to be supplied accordingly. Based on the enhanced target, the petitioner submitted another application for advance of Rs.10,000/- which was also released to the petitioner. In spite of receipt of the advance as above, the petitioner did not take any further steps to supply 'rooted pepper cuttings'. In the course of the inspection conducted by the concerned Agriculture Officer in the nursery of the petitioner, it was revealed that no such 'pepper cuttings' were available there. This led to issuance of a show cause notice dated 30.09.2009 by registered post, which was served to the petitioner on 23.10.1999. It is also stated that, the petitioner had given consent to the effect that, if any default was made by her, with regard to the supply of the pepper O.P. No. 24063 of 2001 : 3 : cuttings, it could be proceeded against, invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. This being the position, the challenge raised by the petitioner against Exts. P2 and P3 notices is not assailable under any circumstances, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the version put forth by the respondents is perfectly within the four walls of law. More so, when the petitioner has not chosen to produce copy of the agreement, nor has be produced any document to substantiate her contention that the 3rd respondent had failed to lift the pepper cuttings on time. The petitioner has also not produced any materials to substantiate her case that she had approached the higher authorities of the department alleging the default on the part of the concerned respondent. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the contentions raised by the petitioner disputing the liability is devoid of any merit or bona fides. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd