IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33077 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SUBAIR.K.,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD AFTAB HOUSE, PADMA PRABHA ROAD, KALPATTA VILLAGE VYTHIRI THALUK, WAYANAD. BY ADV. MR.RENJITH B.MARAR MR.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SMT.P.A.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY PAINGATOOR PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PRESIDENT PAINGATOOR PANCHAYATH KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1, R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, MR.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SMT.LEENA MURALI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 33077/2009-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY NUMBERED AS 2120/1998 OF THE POTHANIKKAD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 05/12/1998. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATIION DATED 03/03/2007 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 27/03/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE SUB JUDGE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, DHANALAKSHMI BANK TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE DISTRAINT WARRANT NO.2/2001 DATED 23/03/2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SHRI.SADANANDAN. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.33077 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a transferee of one of the properties belonging to one Sadanandan. There are certain arrears due to the second respondent panchayat from Sadanandan. The panchayat has initiated prosecution against him. It appears that he has not answered the process of the criminal court. The property assigned by Sadanandan to the petitioner is now covered by an order of attachment by the criminal court. Therefore, the petitioner, in order to save his property from attachment, says that if the defaulter is entitled to request the complainant panchayat to compound the offence, the petitioner may be permitted to do it in lieu of the defaulter in as much as the requirement would be only to pay the amounts due for such compounding. 2.The panchayat, through learned counsel, points out that the petitioner is not the defaulter and is not the person against WPC.33077/09 2 whom the prosecution has been initiated and still further, that if the original defaulter is routed out through the process of the criminal court and compelled to face prosecution and conviction, the fine that could be imposed on him would be much higher and that would generate more income for the panchayat. 3.At this distance of time, the chance of the criminal case ultimately ending in conviction cannot be ascertained with fair amount of certainty in as much as the accused person is yet to answer the process issued by the criminal court, which could also be a case where he would ultimately be characterised as an absconder. In fact, proceedings have been initiated against him in that line. It is therefore that the property which originally stood in his name stands attached. The immediate requirement of the petitioner is to clear that attachment. 4.Taking all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration, it is directed that the petitioner would be treated as eligible to WPC.33077/09 3 pay the amounts on behalf of the defaulter for the purpose of compounding the offence and the panchayat secretary will take up the request of the petitioner in that regard and compound the offence on payment of the entire amounts due for such compounding, provided the amounts are paid within a period of a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.16/12.