IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 29160 OF 1999 ----------------------- PETITIONER: M/S. PURUSHOTHAM GOCULDAS PLYWOOD CO., REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, LAXMIKANT PURUSHOTHAM, BANK ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADVOCATES M/S. C.S. BALAGANGADHARAN & P. RAMAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY - II, KANNUR. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY. 4. THE MANAGER, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., CALICUT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 29160/1999 ORDER ON CMP NO. 49674/1999 & I.A. 13915/2007 // DISMISSED // 17.3.2008. SD/-, P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A. 1077/1994 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.7.1996 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.9.1996 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND OF RS. 8,29,592.40 RAISED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND NO. D2- 35/98-99/MISC. DATED 2.11.1995 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICIE OF ATTACHMENT U/S. 36 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DATED 4.2.1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO. D2-35/98- 99/MISC. DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 21.10.1999. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12.11.1999 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE PROFORMA BANK GUARANTEE EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE AFFIXED IN THE FATORY PREMISES OF THE FIRM. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICIE AFFIXED IN THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE FIRM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- KNC P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = O. P. NO. 29160 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a firm engaged in the manufacture of plywood. It was converted into a Private Limited Company with effect from 1.4.1989. Timber was allotted to the petitioner firm by the Government from its various depots in the State after the enactment of the Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971, price of which was fixed by the Government every year. The notifications fixing selling price, issued by the Government, were challenged by the petitioner and similarly situated persons by filing writ petitions and this Court, while granting interim stay of operation of the notification, directed to furnish bank guarantee to cover the enhanced notified price. Ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed and the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the apex court which was also disposed of. According to the petitioner, the apex court disposed of Civil Appeals 3221-22/1981 directing the State Government to withdraw in all 80% of the amount from the Bank Guarantee together with 12% interest per annum on the amount. Thus, 80% of the bank guarantee with O.P. 29160/1999 :2: interest at 12% per annum become payable. It was also not in dispute that by the time the apex court passed the order, the amount of interest swelled in to a sizable amount. In the meanwhile, the Bank instituted a suit against the petitioner which was also disposed of. However, petitioner did not produce a copy of the said judgment in this writ petition to know what exactly was the order passed by the court. However, it is admitted that a decree was passed against the petitioner. As against the dues to the Government is concerned, they proceeded to recover the same by initiating revenue recovery action. Petitioner preferred O.P. Nos. 4537/1998 and 5776/1998 before this Court challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for non payment of the demands raised by the Divisional Forest Officers at Perumbavoor and at Ranni. According to the learned Government Pleader, those writ petitions have been dismissed. However, a copy of the judgment is not made available to me. An amount of Rs. 8,29,592/40 is the present demand. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply. 2. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Government against the petitioner is legally sustainable? As early as on 15.9.1996, this Court directed the Government Pleader to submit as to whether the Bank guarantee has been encashed pursuant to the order of this Court passed in O.P. 29160/1999 :3: CMP No. 49674/1999 dated 24.3.2006. The records does not however show that any statement was filed in compliance with the above order. When the case was taken up for consideration today, the learned Government Pleader sought for time and hence it was taken up at 1.45 P.M. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the present demand is the balance amount after adjusting the amount to be recovered invoking the bank guarantee. This submission is made by the learned Government Pleader based on a Fax message received. If so, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. Admittedly, Government was not made a party in the civil suit. Though the Bank is made a party to this writ petition, there is no appearance on their behalf. If the petitioner is disputing the balance amount due and payable by him, it is for him to show as to how much has been recovered and what is the balance amount due from him, based on the apex court order. This Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot embark upon an enquiry to see as to what is the amount and quantify the amount due and payable. In the circumstances, if the petitioner has still any dispute regarding the actual balance amount payable he may deposit the amount with the Revenue Recovery Authorities under protest and institute a suit as provided for under the Revenue Recovery Act, which O.P. 29160/1999 :4: right is left open. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) knc/- O.P. 29160/1999 :5: P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = O.P. NO. 29160/1999 = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 17TH MARCH, 2008.