IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 23745 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SOLAMAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. N. KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT MADHU MANDIRAM, MADAKKAMPOYIL, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, P.O., PERINGOME, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M. HABEEB RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALIPARAMBA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTOOR. 4. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KANNUR. BY GOVT. 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: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 23745 OF 2008 B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P4 revenue recovery notice. Earlier, by Ext. P1, demand was raised for royalty. That came to be considered by this Court in O.P. No. 5015/01 filed by the petitioner. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment dated 27.9.2006, taking note of the submissions that an appeal filed against Ext. P1 was pending and directing that if such an appeal is pending, the same will be considered and disposed of. Petitioner was also directed to clear the arrears of royalty in instalments. Admittedly, payment has not been made as directed in Ext. P3 judgment. Now it is also stated that an appeal was not even filed. Learned counsel now submits that the petitioner be permitted to file an appeal at this distance of time and that the recovery be kept in abeyance, in the meanwhile. 2. At the time when Ext. P3 judgment was rendered by this W.P.(C) No. 23745 OF 2008 -2- Court in the earlier case petitioner made a submission that an appeal was pending, while factually, such an appeal was not even filed. If that be so, I am not inclined to permit the petitioner to file an appeal at this distance of time forgetting the wrong submission he made when the earlier writ petition was considered. 3. Since Ext. P1 demand has thus become final, and as admittedly, payment has not been made, even in the manner directed in Ext. P3 judgment, I cannot also find any invalidity in Ext. P4 revenue recovery notice. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks an instalment facility to pay the amount. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a lorry driver and as the counsel submits that he bonafidely desires to discharge the liability, I am inclined to give the petitioner an instalment facility to avoid coercive action in pursuance to Ext. P4. 5. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall pay the amount indicated in Ext. P4 in 4 equal monthly instalments, the first of which will be paid by the petitioner on or before 20.8.2008 and the W.P.(C) No. 23745 OF 2008 -3- subsequent instalments before 20th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that if the petitioner commits default in paying any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to continue the proceedings without notice to him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-