IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26352 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.ANWAR, S/O.MEMI, PROPRIETOR, KCM WOOD CRAFTS, PAYSALA, IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26352 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The petitioner is a defaulter in payment of sales tax, against whom proceedings under Section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was initiated. On an earlier occasion he had approached this Court in WP(C).No:27842/05, challenging the order of arrest and detention issued. In Ext.P7 Judgment this Court set aside the order and directed the District Collector to pass fresh orders after taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner, with advertence to the observations made therein. But even thereafter the District Collector issued only a cryptic order, without adverting to any of the objections, ordering arrest and detention, merely relying on the report of the Tahasildar. The said order was again challenged in WP(C).No:5245/08 before this Court. In Ext.P9 judgment this Court was again constrained to set aside the order and directed re-consideration with specific reference to the objections raised by the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P9 Judgment the District Collector heard the petitioner on 16.9.2009. Apprehension now expressed by the petitioner is that even W.P.(C).26352/09 2 without serving copy of the order which may be issued, there is a chance of the petitioner being arrested through police authorities. In such case the petitioner may not even get opportunity to challenge the order, even if it is devoid of merits, and on such event the petitioner will be put to irreparable legal injuries. 3. Having considered the contentions, I am of the opinion that it is only just and proper to have the petitioner served with a copy of the order if any passed, before execution of such order, especially on considering the fact that unsustainable orders were issued on two occasions earlier. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent District Collector to serve copy of order if any passed pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment on the petitioner, and if any arrest and detention is ordered, it should not be executed for a period of one week after effecting service of the order on the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb