IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 33165 of 2007(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOSEPH JOHN, KODIYATHE VEEDU, KAVUMBAGOM, THIRUVALLA-2, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SMT.K.S.SABITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, COCHIN-16, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, COCHIN-16, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33165 OF 2007 (W) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The only issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the competence of the 1st respondent in initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged loss sustained by them. 2. The petitioner was a workman of the 1st respondent. On the allegation of deficit in the stock, proceedings were initiated in the criminal court and disciplinary action was also initiated. In the Criminal case, according to the petitioner, he has been acquitted. 3. Be that as it may, in the domestic enquiry that was conducted, the petitioner was found guilty and ultimately he was ordered to be dismissed. ID raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Kollam also ended in an award against the petitioner. That was challenged in a writ petition and the award also has been confirmed. 4. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated for realising the loss. That was challenged before this Court in OP WPC 33165/07 :2 : 6490/1996 resulting in Ext.P1 judgment where this Court directed reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P8 is the order that was passed. It is in pursuance to this that proceedings have been initiated for recovery. 5. Admittedly, the case of the 1st respondent is that it has incurred loss on account of the deficiency in the stock. 1st respondent is also an establishment to which Revenue Recovery Act has been made applicable by virtue of a notification issued under Section 71 of the Act. If that be so, it is perfectly within the domain of the 1st respondent initiating recovery proceedings taking recourse to the Revenue Recovery Act. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp