IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23521 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. GOPACHANDRAN NAIR, ONATU HOUSE, PERIYAPURAM P.O., PAMPAKUDA (VIA) ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL ALIAS ANISH, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHITHALA P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, KASARGODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23521/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, along with two other persons were abkari contractors, for running abkari shop Nos.1 to 88 in Hosdurg Range during the abkari year 1989-90. It is stated that, apart from the first petitioner, all other licensees have expired. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, he is the grandson of one of the licensees. According to the petitioners, during the currency of the abkari year 1989-90, the shops were placed under the Departmental Management under the provisions of the Abkari shops(Departmental Management) Rules, 1992 and an amount of Rs.24,24,520/- was collected as Departmental Management fee. Though, this amount ought to have been given credit towards their dues, immediately on realisation, it was only following Ext.P1 order dated 16.10.1992, the amount was adjusted. WP(c).No.23521/2008 2 According to the petitioners, on account of the delay in adjusting, interest accrued on the principal amount and as a result of which the liability of the licensees increased correspondingly. Now Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioners requiring them to avail the benefit of Ext.P3 if they so desires. Thereupon they submitted Ext.P5 application for the benefit of Ext.P3 Amnesty Scheme on which Ext.P6 order has been passed intimating the amount payable. It is challenging Ext.P6, this writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention that is raised by the petitioner is that, if the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 was given credit with effect from the date on which it ought to have been credited, they would not have had the liability to pay the interest that has already accrued and that the principal amount would also have reduced proportionately. It is stated that if this had happened their outstanding liability in terms of Ext.P3, would have been much less than what is now notified. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also now relying on an order dated 22.2.2000 issued by the erstwhile WP(c).No.23521/2008 3 Board of Revenue, which according to him, is one granting relief similar to what is sought for by the writ petitioners. 4. What arise for consideration is the validity of Ext.P6. In Ext.P6 what has been done is the quantification of the petitioners' liability. Since the petitioners are now claiming adjustment of the amount collected as Departmental Management fee with effect from the date on which it was realised and this claim is an admissible one, what is called for is the requantification of the liability of the petitioners, which in my view, can be better done by the first respondent. 5. Therefore, I direct the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the first respondent claiming the aforesaid benefit and also the benefit of the order dated 22.2.2000 referred to above. ^This the petitioner shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. It is directed that on receipt of such an application from the petitioners, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible WP(c).No.23521/2008 4 and at any rate within 2 weeks thereafter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner now points out that, since the quantification of their liability has been done as per Ext.P6 and if they do not make payment thereof within 15 days thereafter, in view of the provisions contained in Ext.P3 they will be loosing the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Since I have already directed the Excise Commissioner to examine the claim of the petitioners, in order to take care of the grievance now raised by the petitioners, I direct that the 15 days time specified in Ext.P3 Government Order will run as against the petitioners only from the date of receipt of the order as directed to be passed by the Excise Commissioner, provided the petitioners file the representation in this behalf within the time specified above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE WP(c).No.23521/2008 5 vi.