IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 W. A.No. 2368 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.2366/2003 Dated 19/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE OP: -------------------------- SRI.M.SUNDERESAN, PAIVILA VEEDU, CHERUKULAM P.O., ANCHAL. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR & SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2368 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Original Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner was the licensee of Toddy Shop Nos.63 and 73 to 78 of Chadayamangalam Excise Range during the excise year 1996-97. He obtained permit No.169/96-97 on 14.11.1998 for inter district transport of 1200 bulk litres of toddy from Palakkad. The fee payable for the said quantity was not paid by the petitioner for the reason that the very levy of fee was under challenge before this Court. The petitioner submits that after the lapse of several years, he was served with Ext.P1 demand notice claiming an amount of Rs.1,39,200/-. It was followed by Ext.P2 dated 21.12.2002 proposing to sell his immovable properties in W.A. No.2368 of 2008 - 2 - public auction to realise the amount. Therefore, he filed Ext.P3 objection pointing out that the demand was illegal and no amount was due from him. He also sought the details of the computation of the amount allegedly due from him. Thereafter this Original Petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. During the pendency of the Original Petition, there was a stay against collection of amounts due under Exts.P1/P2. 2. The second appellant herein filed a counter affidavit in the Original Petition, pointing out that the petitioner has been served with Ext.R2(a) demand claiming an amount of Rs.1,39,200/- and also a further demand, Ext.R2 (c) claiming Rs.3,600/- from him towards fee for inter district transport of toddy. When the petitioner defaulted, the Revenue Recovery authorities were moved as per Ext.R2(b) and R2(d) to collect the amount due. Therefore, the levy and demand were justified, it is submitted by the second appellant. The petitioner did not file any reply affidavit. So, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition, but W.A. No.2368 of 2008 - 3 - issued the following directions: “...But considering the fact that original petition was pending before this Court all these years and there was a stay, it is only appropriate that if the petitioner pays the demanded amount of Rs.1,39,200/- in three equal monthly instalments, there shall be no further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2. The stay granted by this Court will be kept in abeyance so as to enable the petitioner to comply with this order. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 19/04/2008 and thereafter, on the 19th of the succeeding months. In case of failure to pay any one of the instalments as aforesaid, the petitioner will lose the benefit of this order and it will be open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The original petition is disposed of as above.” Apprehending that the above directions may stand in the way of the appellants collecting interest from the respondent, this Writ Appeal was filed. According to the appellants, the learned Single Judge waived the liability of the respondent/petitioner to pay interest. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that, there was no such direction in the judgment. W.A. No.2368 of 2008 - 4 - In the result, it is clarified that, if the appellants are entitled to collect interest from the respondent as per the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Rules, the judgment under appeal will not stand in their way. With this clarification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Q. Barkath Ali, Judge. DK. (True copy)