IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32189 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, AGE 63 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, USHUS, KURUVILAKKONAM, KARUPPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEGUMANGAD 695541. 4. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695001. 5. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S. JAMAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BEHAAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 32189 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS --------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.18.10.2005 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 24.07.2010 EXT.P4 COY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DTD. 08.08.2011 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 29.01.2011. EXT.P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MRI SCAN REPORT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 19.10.2011 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY ACKNOWLEDGEMNT OF HAVING RECEIVED EXHIBIT P9 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 32189 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner to the District Industries Centre. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has no means to pay the amounts and now revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the movable properties belonging to the daughter of the petitioner, along with whom the petitioner resides. According to the petitioner, amounts are due from the 4th respondent to the petitioner, against which, garnishee proceedings can be initiated by other respondents for recovery of the amounts due. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P9 and recover the amount from the 4th respondent in the capacity as Garnishee; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to return the amount to the petitioner which was retained towards Performance Guarantee; iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent not to proceed till a decision is taken on Exhibit P9 by the 2nd respondent.” 2. In view of the contention that amounts are due from the 4th respondent to the petitioner, I directed the learned Standing w.p.c.32189/11 - : 2 :- Counsel for the 4th respondent to inform this Court as to whether they admit any amount as due to the petitioner. The Standing Counsel submits that although amounts are retained as performance guarantee, the KSRTC has counter claims against the petitioner for more amounts than what are retained, in respect of which, a suit has also been filed. Therefore, at this point of time they do not admit any amount as due to the petitioner, rather, according to them, amounts are due to them from the petitioner, is the contention raised. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. As far as the garnishee proceedings are concerned, respondents 1 to 3 and 5 cannot proceed against the 4th respondent unless the 4th respondent admits any amount as due to the petitioner. Further, an adjudication as to whether any amount is due from the 4th respondent to the petitioner is beyond the scope of the revenue recovery proceedings without adjudication taking evidence. I cannot also decide whether amounts are due from the 4th respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not think that this Court can direct respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to initiate garnishee proceedings against the 4th respondent for the amounts due from the petitioner to the 5th respondent or to direct the 4th respondent to pay any amount to the w.p.c.32189/11 - : 3 :- petitioner. In respect of other matters, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P9 representation before the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to a representative of the petitioner, since the petitioner is stated to be laid up on account of paralysis. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge