IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 9178 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N.K.THOMAS KUTTY S/O.LATE JOSEPH KURUVILLA, NEERANAKUNNEL HOUSE VELICHIANI, PERATHODU PO, KANJIRAPPALLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANJIRAPPALLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 9178/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE R.R. DEMAND NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12/93. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.7.1997. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.12.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 3033 OF 1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.2.2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.10968 OF 2001. EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 1.8.2001. EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. 10 : TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.19 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.11.2007. EXT. P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 5.12.2007 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6/96 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.3.2007 OF THE PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.9178 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P2, P3, P9 and P10. The matter arises out of proceedings under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner has approached this court earlier as evident from Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.P5 judgment, the following direction is issued: “I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Exts.P5 and P7 objections, if it has already been received, in reply to Exts.P4 and P6 notices, and to take a decision thereon, with an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or to his authorised representative. There will also be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 not to arrest and detain the petitioner, till a final order is passed as directed herein above.” Thereafter petitioner is issued with Ext.P6 notice dated 26.2.2001. Petitioner again approached this court and filed W.P.(C) 10968 of 2001 and culminated in Ext.P7 judgment. In Ext.P7 judgment, taking note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner had appeared on 7.3.2001 and agreed to settle the liability, but taking the view that orders are to be passed on Ext.P1, directed that the petitioner may file WPC. 9178/2008. 2 his objections if any, the respondents were directed to pass orders. It was also directed that till such time orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner, coercive proceedings will be suspended. According to the petitioner, petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 written statement. Ext.P9 dated 15.11.2007 is issued by the Collector along with Ext.P10 which is the From 19 notice. Thereafter it is pointed out that the petitioner has preferred Exts.P11 and P12. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no final order has been passed in the matter. He further submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount. 4. According to the learned Government Pleader, there was a hearing on 5.12.2007 and 19.12.2007. Thereafter on 23.2.2008 petitioner was given a month's time to pay the amount and in the meantime petitioner has approached this court. Regarding the petitioner's liability, the case is that the petitioner is not liable. I do not think that it is open to the petitioner to take such a contention before the Collector under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act and he is not bound to consider it also. I am not dealing with that contention. The only direction that is given is that the first WPC. 9178/2008. 3 respondent will pass a final order within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, petitioner will not be arrested. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb