IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 34929 of 2002(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.RAJAN S/O. M.KRISHNAN, MULLANGATH HOUSE, P.O. CODACAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, MALAPPURAM 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 3819 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP NOS. 59129/2002 AND IA NO. 8037/04 IN CMP 59129 OF 2002 IN OP 34929 OF 2002 DISMISSED 28.5.2009 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX (OP 34929/02) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. PR1 2/2002-03/ABKARI K DIS. D4.38401/2002 DATED 5.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2002 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.1.2003 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT (TAHSILDAR, TIRUR) TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. No. 34929 OF 2002 & W.P.C. NO. 3819 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT In both the WPC and OP petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of kist arrears due from him as Secretary of the Tirur Range Toddy Workers' Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. According to the petitioner, he is only an employee and he has no personal liability. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that petitioner executed permanent agreement with the Government and therefore recovery is permissible from him. I do not think this Court should consider whether petitioner is personally liable or not because recovery is a matter done by the Tahsildar before whom petitioner can raise his objections. If there is any dispute on quantum of liability, it is for the petitioner to raise the same before the Asst. Commissioner (Excise). Therefore the contention of the petitioner that he has done business only for part of the year also does not call for any decision by this Court. WPC and OP are disposed of directing the 2 Tahsildar to proceed with recovery after hearing the petitioner and after passing adjudication orders on his objections and after going through the agreements he executed with the Govt. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3