IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23288 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. RANI, D/O. JERTHOOTH, AGED 42 J.J.BHAVAN, AZHAMKALPURAYIDAM, PUTHIYALTHURA [PO] 2. DOMINIC AGED 38, S/O. MARSALIN, J.J.BHAVAN, AZHAMKALPURAYIDAM, PUTHIYALTHURA [PO] BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETRY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23288/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner No.1 was the contractor of toddy shop Nos.15 and 22 of Neyyattinkara and Thirupuram Excise Range respectively, during the abkari year 1996-1997. Following Ext.P7 Government Order declaring Amnesty Scheme, they approached this court mainly praying that the amount already realised from them was in excess of what was actually due and therefore should be adjusted towards their liability under the Amnesty Scheme. This court considered that contention of the petitioner and disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P9 judgment directing that, it will be open to the petitioners to make an application to the 3rd respondent therein and directed the 3rd respondent to decide the claim of the petitioners for the benefit of the WP(c).No.23288/08 2 Amnesty Scheme. It was also clarified that, if any excess amount is available with the respondents, that has to be given credit towards the liability of the petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners submitted Ext.P10 application and considering the same Ext.P11 order has now been passed. 2. In Ext.P11, after tracing the history of the dispute between the parties, which was also agitated before this court on various occasions, 3rd respondent has finally held that, if the petitioners are willing to pay amount as provided in the Amnesty Scheme within the time stipulated in the Government order, the petitioner can avail of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for the adjustment of the excess amount alleged to have been realised, it has been specefically found that the said amount has already been adjusted towards their arrears and therefore their request for adjustment cannot be considered. 3. On going through Ext.P11, I see no reason to interfere with this finding, particularly since the Amnesty WP(c).No.23288/08 3 Scheme does not provide for reopening of adjustments already made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since shop No.22 of Thirupuram Exchange Range was closed under the orders of the District Collector and this court, the petitioners are entitled to proportionate reduction in the amount that is due. I do not find that such a claim is raised by the petitioners in Ext.P10. Therefore, if the petitioners have such a claim, it is for them to raise it before the concerned respondents, in which case, it is for them to consider the same. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.23288/08 4