IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1994 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.N.SUKUMARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, THALAYAR, KUTTOOR P.O. THIRUVALLA - 6, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (RTD. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT UNDER THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KIZHASSERI, KONDOTTY) BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI, SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DEPUTY DIREECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, O/O.D.P.I., JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) O/O.TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.1994/2011-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for a direction to consider Ext.P3 appeal, filed before the second respondent- Director of Public Instruction, challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him. 2. The petitioner retired from service as Senior Superintendent under the Assistant Educational Officer, Kizhasseri, Kondotty on 31/10/2000. It is stated that by Ext.P1, a communication was given to the petitioner fixing liability to the tune of Rs.34,33,180/-. At the relevant time of the issuance of Ext.P1, he was not residing within the State and, therefore, he could not file any objection in the matter. Thereafter, a demand notice was issued as per Ext.P2 under the Revenue Recovery Act and on receipt of the Revenue Recovery Demand Notice, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the fixation of liability cannot be justified. Certain W.P.(C). No.1994/2011 -:2:- other contentions have also been raised in Ext.P3. I am not going into the merits of the contentions, since it is upto the second respondent to take a decision in the matter after assessing various aspects. 4. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 appeal, which is stated to be pending, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment before the second respondent for compliance. Further action pursuant to Ext.P2 Revenue Recovery Notice will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the second respondent. The petitioner will also be given a personal hearing in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE