IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26349 of 2004(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAMLA MAJEED, W/O.DR.P.V.MAJEED, RESIDING AT `HIBA', PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 690 518. BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SMT.M.R.VALSA, SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R, SMT.G.GEETHISHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 518. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 4. DR.P.V.MAJEED, RESIDING AT `HIBA', PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 690 518. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26349/2004-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF A.M. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY DTD. 07/09/2004. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED JOINTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND THE R.4. DTD. 18/07/1988. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RATION CARD DTD. 27/07/2003. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 07/02/2004. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 28/05/2004. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 02/06/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 02/06/2004. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIVE ITEMS OF PROPERTY OWNED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE R.4. DTD. NIL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2004 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers. “i) Call for Exts.P4 to P7 demand notices and quash the same in so far as it purports to distrain and sell the movable property in the house of the petitioner covered by Ext.P2 sale deed; ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from proceeding against the movables in the house of the petitioner for the dues of the fourth respondent ; iii) declare that the petitioner and the fourth respondent are distinct legal entities and that the movables of the petitioner are not liable to be proceeded against for the dues of the fourth respondent; and iv) issue such other writ, order or W.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2004 2 direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 2. The petitioner, who is the wife of the 4th respondent contends that she is in no way connected with the business of the 4th respondent and that the petitioner, though is staying in the building situated in the property purchased jointly in the name of the 4th respondent/husband and the petitioner, along with children, there is no reason to proceed against the movables, in the building and that since the 4th responding is having several other properties, it is very much open to proceed against the properties owned by the 4th respondent. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, it was admitted on 09.09.2004 and the following interim order was passed: “There will be a stay against recovery of movables from the residential building where the petitioner is residing with simultaneous direction that the 2nd respondent to proceed for recovery against the assets of the 4th W.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2004 3 respondent immediately and file a report regarding the result of such recovery within three weeks from now. The petitioner will produce copy of this order and copy of the writ petition wherein details of the property of the defaulter are furnished by the petitioner, before the 2nd respondent for compliance and report.” 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent developments, after passing the interim order on 09.09.2004, also giving liberty to the concerned respondent to proceed against the property of the 4th respondent, are still to be ascertained. However, the learned Counsel submits that the liability of the 4th respondent/husband is not disputed and further since a Scheme notified by the Government (Amnesty Scheme) is available, which is stated as valid till 31.12.2010, the liability may be permitted to be satisfied , if not already cleared , by availing the benefit of the Scheme. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the subsisting liability, if W.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2004 4 any by availing the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. If any such application is preferred by the petitioner for availing the benefit of the Scheme within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the same shall be considered by the concerned authority, extending the benefit thereunder in accordance with the terms of the Scheme. The application so to be preferred by the petitioner shall not be rejected holding that the petitioner is not the actual defaulter or that the assessee is the 4th respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear that further recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is also made clear that, if the petitioner fails to honour the commitment as above, it will be open to the respondent to proceed with further steps. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk