IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1177 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- JOHN BENNY AGED 33, S/O. A.J.PETER ADIMARIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUMALA PO, ELAVAYAL MEPPADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.1177 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January , 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved of the recovery steps pursued by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C)No.4830 of 2009, which led to Ext.P1 judgment whereby taking note of the grievances projected by the petitioner about the lack of opportunity for hearing, the petitioner was directed to be present before the first respondent at 11.00 a.m. on 27.02.2009, simultaneously directing the first respondent to have the matter finalized, after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. The case now projected in the present Writ Petition is that Ext.P2 notice was thrust upon him from the office of the first respondent directing the petitioner to have appeared on 11.11.2009 at 2.00 p.m. simultaneously directing to remit a sum W.P.(C) No.1177 OF 2010 2 of Rs. 50000/- towards arrears. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the first respondent did not make any proper enquiry before directing the petitioner to remit Rs.50000/- It is also stated that the petitioner had appeared before the first respondent pursuant to Ext.P1 verdict and thereafter in response to Ext. P2 notice, through Counsel and filed objections. Nothing has been produced before this Court to substantiate such appearance or as to the filing of objections before the first respondent in this regard in response to the averments raised by the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that despite the specific direction given by this Court vide Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner never chose to appear before the first respondent. It was in the said circumstances, Ext.P2 notice was issued from the office of the first respondent through Special Messenger, which also was not responded from the part of the petitioner and in the said circumstance no interference is warranted, submits the learned Government Pleader W.P.(C) No.1177 OF 2010 3 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under two different transactions , the first one in respect of the arrears payable to the Sales Tax Department, which comes to nearly 1.25 lakhs with interest and cost . The second liability is in respect of a bank loan availed by the petitioner which comes to Rs.1.17 plus interest and cost. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was conducting an electric shop and that he used to file no returns before the authorities concerned and the incriminating circumstances were brought to light in the course of inspection carried out by the Intelligence Department. Since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same, the action pursued by the respondent is stated as perfectly within the four walls of the law. Th learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner might be given some breathing time to wipe out the entire liability 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Fifty thousand on or before 31st of this month and the balance shall be cleared by way of W.P.(C) No.1177 OF 2010 4 five equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 28.02.2010, to be followed by similar installments, to be effected on or before the 28th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps, from the stage where it stands now, for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk