IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 115 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23991/2005 Dated 18/08/2009 PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------- RAMESAN @ KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KURAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT: 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------- MR.THANKACHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CONT. CASE (C) NO. 115 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag. CJ. The only respondent in this contempt case is the present Tahilsdar attached to Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam. The complaint made is that the respondent has disobeyed the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 23991/2005 rendered on 18.8.2009, produced as Annexure-II. The Division Bench was considering a batch of writ petitions along with certain writ appeals. The issue was related to realisation and collection of charges in connection with recovery under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ultimately, by the penultimate paragraph of the judgment (para 7) a direction was given to the appellants in the writ appeal as also the Government, Corporations and Institutions to examine each case on facts and do the needful in the matter of levy of collection charges/service charges and for returning the documents and refund of excess amounts if any collected in the light of the judgment. Therefore, Revenue Recovery action is taken under various statutes and as far as the present case is concerned, it is abkari dues. However, we find from Annexure I that the respondent herein has already forwarded the remittance particulars of CONT. CASE 115/2010 2 abkari dues in respect of the petitioner herein and the refund, if any, has to be ordered by the Department concerned and not by the respondent. In such circumstances, the proper course open to the petitioner is to move the Commissioner of Excise for necessary relief based on Annexure II judgment and if only there is any inaction on the part of the concerned authorities that a contempt, if at all, will lie. In view of the above facts and circumstances, at this stage, we do not find any contempt is made out, at any rate, against the respondent herein. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, (JUDGE). knc/-