IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18324 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TONY SIMON M S/O. SIMON, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, P.O.ANJUR, MUNDOOR,THRISSUR 680 549 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER PALAKKAD. 2. THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR , CHITTUR 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) THRISSUR 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER ANJOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18324 OF 2008 F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P4, revenue recovery notice issued to the petitioner for realising his Abkari dues. Petitioner was the licensee of a foreign liquor shop during 1997-98. According to the petitioner, recognizing the fact that he had no amount in default, even the interest on security deposit released as per Ext. P1, way back in 1998. 2. Petitioner submits that despite this, in 2004, by Ext. P2 an amount of Rs.35,551/- was demanded from him. On receipt of Ext. P2 he replied by Ext. P3 asserting that no amount was due from him and that inspite of this, recovery proceedings have been initiated. 3. In this writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. According to the respondents, in the audit report for 1997-99 it was found that an amount of Rs.19,246/- was in arrears from the petitioner. It is stated that after adjusting W.P.(C) No. 18324 OF 2008 -2- Rs.4,086/- paid by the petitioner on 2.2.1998, the balance amount due from the petitioner was found to be Rs.15,160/-. According to the respondents when notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount, he contested the notice. As he did not pay the amount due the recovery proceedings were initiated. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt. Pleader. 5. Ext. R2(a) is the audit report relied on by the respondents. From Ext. R2(a) what is seen is that monthly kist payable by the petitioner was Rs.4,05000/-. It is stated that the petitioner committed default in paying the aforesaid amount for October 1997. From out of the additional security, Rs.3,36,900/- was adjusted on 23.1.1998 towards the kist due for the month of October, 1997 and that the balance amount was remitted by the petitioner only on 2.2.1998 and hence interest is claimed for the belated payment. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that since deposit was available for the department, the department could have immediately appropriated the same in October, 1997 itself. According to him, he cannot be penalised for the default of the W.P.(C) No. 18324 OF 2008 -3- respondents in taking timely action. 7. In my view that cannot be a justification to exonerate the petitioner from his liability for interest. The question of appropriation arises only when default is committed by a licensee. In this case, petitioner committed default in October, 1997 and it was therefore that, after complying with all the formalities, appropriation was made from out of the additional security. Even that amount was insufficient and the shortage was made up by the petitioner only on 2.2.1998. If that be so, the appropriation was necessitated on account of the default committed by the petitioner and as a consequence thereof, delay was caused in the respondents realising the amount. If delay was caused as above, in terms of the rules, licensee is bound to be saddled with the liability for interest as well. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find anything erroneous in Ext. P4. Writ petition flails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-