IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25268 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TOMY THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMMEN, PLATHOTTAM HOUSE, KAROOR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE 'DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE', SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EXCISE IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. MATHEW P.T., S/O.LATE THOMMEN, PLATOTTAM HOUSE, POONJAR SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 25268 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 21, 2008 JUDGMENT The claim of the petitioner is for availing of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme announced by the Government of Kerala, enabling the abkari defaulters to settle their liabilities on concessional rates. 2. Petitioner submits that he, along with his brother, the 5th respondent, was an abkari contractor during the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. Admittedly amounts are in default and are due to be paid. According to the petitioner, soon after the Amnesty Scheme was announced by the Government of Kerala, Ext.P1 was issued to him by the 4th respondent informing him about the scheme and requiring him to avail of the benefits. Petitioner submits that in response to Ext.P1, he submitted Exts.P2 and P2(a) for availing of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Thereupon he was informed that due to the pendency of AS WP(C) 25268/08 2 No.696/1998 and WP(C) 30333/2006 before this Court, the application cannot be considered. 3. Thereupon the petitioner responded by informing the 4th respondent that it was without his knowledge that the aforesaid cases were filed and that his signature was also forged. It is stated that from the reply of the 4th respondent, when he came to know about the two litigations, he filed Ext.P3 affidavit and petition before this Court in AS No.696/1998 confessing that it was without his knowledge that the appeal was filed. It is his case that considering Ext.P3, this Court has vacated the stay that was granted in the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that a similar affidavit has also been filed in WP(C) 30333/2006. Petitioner now submits that in spite of intimating respondents 3 and 4 the above facts, they still insist that the litigations should be withdrawn for availing of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. 4. True, one of the conditions of the Amnesty Scheme WP(C) 25268/08 3 is that pending litigations should be withdrawn. But, however, the fact remains that it is the petitioner's case that the litigations, to which he is a party, were filed without his knowledge and even forging his signature. To that effect he has already filed Ext.P3 affidavit in AS No.696/1998. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, acting upon the same, stay granted in that case has been vacated. The learned counsel also submits that a similar affidavit has been filed in WP(C) 30333/2006 also. If the factual situation is as above, I do not think that there is any justification to decline the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the petitioner. In my view, it should be open to the petitioner to avail of the benefit of the scheme provided he satisfies his eligibility for the same in all other respects. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- i. That the petitioner shall file a fresh application before the 3rd respondent, producing the affidavits and petitions that he has filed in AS No.696/1998 WP(C) 25268/08 4 and WP(C) 30333/2006, along with the order that has been passed by this Court vacating the stay in AS No.696/1998. ii. Once such an application and the documents are received from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for extending the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, if he is eligible for the same in all other respects. 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 3 and 4 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-