IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26748 of 2004(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.MADHAVAN NAIR, "SIVASAKTHI", N.C.C. NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), THIRUVANANTHPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 26748/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 16.6.1992 TO THE MANAGING PARTNER, KRISHNA ENTERPRISES. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. SI/6622/01 DATED 2.12.2003 TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2003. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERRAL O.P. CARD DATED 22.3.1997 ISSUED FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 25.11.1997 ISSUED FROM PRS HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 7.1.1998 ISSUED FROM PRS HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 10.7.1999 ISSUED FROM PNVM HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 13.5.2002 ISSUED FROM PRS HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE SUMMARY AND DISCHARGE RECORD DATED 10.9.2002 FROM SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM, TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE STATE IN O.S. NO. 1401/2004 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 1401/2004 DATED 15.7.2006 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL. // TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26748 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is a senior citizen, was constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition challenging the revenue recovery proceedings, seeking to realise the amount stated as due to the State towards arrears of sales tax from the firm by name 'Krishna Enterprises', in which he was a partner earlier. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner chose to retire from the partnership by submitting Ext.P1 letter, though necessary corrections/entries/endorsements were not caused to be effected in the relevant records. While so, petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice under the Revenue Recovery Act seeking to realise a sum of Rs. 1,57,679/- with interest and collection charges in respect of various assessment years from 1992-93 onwards. Immediately, petitioner rushed to the third respondent by filing Ext.P3 objection stating that he had already retired from the partnership (which was started in 1991), as early as in 1992 itself and that he was not liable to satisfy the demand. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was not having any assets by way of movable or immovable properties and that the petitioner, who was a 'hexagonarian' having crossed the age of 60 years, was eaking out his livelihood on the WP(C) 26748/2004 2 basis of his meagre pension which was not liable to be attached and further that he was living at the mercy of his daughter because of various ailments as borne by Exts.P4 to P9. In spite of the said objection, the Revenue authorities proceeded with further coercive steps by proceeding to attach the movables belonging to the daughter of the petitioner, which made him to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. The writ petition was admitted and an interim stay was granted on 13.9.2004. Subsequently, on 15.10.2004, taking note of the contentions in the statement filed on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was directed to satisfy a sum of Rs. 8,000/- within six weeks on which event, further proceedings were ordered to be kept in abeyance, making it clear that it would be open for the respondents to proceed against the other partners of the firm. The matter came up for further consideration before this Court on 17.7.2007. Then the satisfaction of the condition by the petitioner was reported and was recorded. In the said circumstance, taking note of the contentions raised on both sides, it was directed that the assets of the other partners shall be proceeded against in the first instance and that there shall be no action against the petitioner. The action taken as above was directed to be placed on record through an affidavit of the recovering authority before the next date of hearing. In spite of the specific direction as WP(C) 26748/2004 3 above, the affidavit in compliance thereof is still to be filed by the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with reference to the contents of I.A.12121 of 2010 and the documents produced along with the said I.A., submits that the daughter of the petitioner and her husband had approached the civil court (Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram) by filing O.S. 1401 of 2004 seeking for a declaration as to their exclusive right and interest over the concerned property; with regard to which the petitioner was having no right whatsoever. Reference is also made to Ext.P10 written statement filed on the part of the respondents / Revenue in the said suit, wherein it is contended in Para 9, that the Revenue officials have not initiated any coercive steps as apprehended by the plaintiffs against them or their properties and that the suit has become infructuous. After taking note of the rival pleadings, on conclusion of the trial, Ext.P11 verdict was passed by the civil court granting a decree declaring that the plaintiffs are having absolute right and possession over plaint B sand C schedule properties and that the defendant and their officials would stand restrained from taking away the B and C schedule articles kept in the plaint A schedule building and from disturbing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of such items. The specific averment of the petitioner that the petitioner is WP(C) 26748/2004 4 having no property in his name is not controverted on the part of the respondents by filing any counter affidavit but for the contents of the statement dated 5.10.2004, which has already been taken note of by this Court while passing the interim order dated 15.10.2004, followed by the subsequent order dated 17.7.2007. 5. In the above circumstances, the respondents are permitted to proceed against the properties of the other partners in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, if at all the liability is still subsisting and not against the properties of the daughter of the petitioner including the items covered by Ext.P11 verdict passed by the civil court. It is also made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents in proceeding against any of the properties of the petitioner, if he has acquired any such properties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-