IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23110 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.K. RIYAS, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.T.K. ALAVIKKUTTY, CHATHOTHUVAYAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.FRANKUR D.JAYAN, SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WAYANAD, KALPETTA, PIN-673 121. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER III, VYTHIRI, KALPETTA, PIN-673 121. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020. 4. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD, KALPETTA, PIN-673 121. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 23110 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the son of the defaulter has approached this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P8 order passed by the 5th respondent, whereby the petitioner's father has been caused to be arrested and detained in Civil prison. The application for bail submitted by the father of the petitioner before the 5th respondent has been rejected as per Ext.P10 order, observing that the defaulter has not chosen to effect the defaulted amount or atleast the amount of Rs.25 lakhs ordered by this Court in WP(C) 32089/2006. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court, that the father of the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by challenging the proceedings pursued by the concerned respondents under Section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, by filing WP(C) 32089/2006. This Court passed an interim order intercepting the coercive proceedings, which was subsequently modified as per Ext.P3 order dated 18.06.2007, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs (out of the total dues of about 'six crores') and in case of failure, giving positive direction to the concerned respondents to arrest the petitioner and to report compliance. The matter has 2 WP(C) No. 23110/2010 become final by virtue of Ext.P4 judgment, wherein it was observed that, if the petitioner had any further grievance against the orders of the concerned authority, he could approach the Commissioner for Land Revenue. It is stated that even after reserving such right, the petitioner has not chosen to approach the Commissioner for Land Revenue and this being the position, no interference is warranted, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. Going by the materials on record, the fact remains that the petitioner is still to comply with the direction given by this Court vide Ext.P3 and he has also not chosen to approach the Commissioner for Land Revenue as made clear in Ext.P4 judgment. It was in the said circumstance, Ext.P8 order was passed by the 5th respondent causing the petitioner to be arrested and detained in civil prison, referring to the specific order passed by this Court; finally leading to Ext.P10. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner/aggrieved party to avail other appropriate remedies, if any, in accordance with law; on which event, it shall be considered and finalised by the concerned authority forthwith. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc