IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3427 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M. ABDULLA, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 58 YEARS, ANCHAMPARTUTHIYIL, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., N. PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, B.S.N.L., BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, N.PARAVUR. ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3427 OF 2009 G ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P6, P2 and P2(a). 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner was a Director of M/s.Admas Multi Marketing Private Limited. It is stated that the petitioner Company has subscribed 4 mobile connections and one more connection in which the petitioner is not having the number now. According to the petitioner, there is some dispute that the petitioner resigned from the directorship of the Company from 30.12.2003. The petitioner was served with Exts.P2 and P2(a) notices. According to the petitioner, he made a representation as Ext.P3. The petitioner had approached this court earlier and this court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner vide Ext.P4 directing Ext.P3 to be considered. There was a writ appeal in which the Division Bench set aside the direction to deposit Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, Ext.P6 order is passed. In Ext.P6, it is found that dues pertaining to the period WPC.3427/09 : 2 : from 1.3.2003 to 31.12.2003 was before the petitioner resigned from the directorship of the company. It is stated that hence the petitioner is liable to pay the bill amount. There is no dispute regarding the finding that the petitioner was a Director during the period from 1.3.2003 to 31.12.2003. 3. But, the petitioner seeks to set up the case that the petitioner is not liable at all and this is for the reason that the petitioner is only a Director of the company and the liability can be enforced against the company. In Ext.P3 also the petitioner has taken such contention. By Ext.P4, this court had directed to take a decision on Ext.P3. But there is no reference to this aspect of the matter in Ext.P6. No doubt, learned standing counsel for BSNL has filed a statement supported with the bills. It is his contention that actually it cannot be said that the connection was taken in the name of the company. He has produced the terms and conditions also. According to the learned standing counsel, the connections, which are the subject matter of this writ petition, are all individual connections and not in the name of the company. He also relies in this regard Clause 2.5 of the terms and conditions. Actually, WPC.3427/09 : 3 : this question should have been considered by the authority with reference to the material, since the petitioner has taken a contention that the petitioner is not personally liable in the matter. For the proposition that the amounts due from the company cannot be recovered from the Director, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions reported in Nishad Patel Vs. State of Kerala [1998 (2) KLT 793], Kuriakose Vs. PKV Group of Industries [2002 (2) KLT 342] and Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. and another Vs. District Collector, Quilon [1985 KLT 758]. Of course, the petitioner has also a case that he was not given an opportunity before Ext.P6 is issued. This is disputed by the learned standing counsel. Having regard to the facts of this case, the authority has to decide the matter with reference to the material. In view of the fact that the matter is pending for some time, writ petition is disposed of by quashing Ext.P6 and directing that the matter will be redone. In order to take up the matter without any further notice, the petitioner will be present before the 1st respondent at 3 pm on 10.3.2009. After affording an opportunity to the petitioner WPC.3427/09 : 4 : for hearing, a decision will be taken as was directed in Ext.P4 judgment, within a further period of three weeks from the date of hearing. The petitioner will be permitted to verify the application forms at the time of hearing. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE