IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26471 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.H.LATHEEF, S/O.K.M.HASSAN, AGED 45, XII/216,PANAYAPALLY,KOCHI-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA) SRI.B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLCTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD 4. PORT OFFICER PORT OFFICE, NEENDAKARA, ASHRAMAM,KOLLAM-2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.26471 of 2010-H ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Dispute in this writ petition pertains to hiring of three Barges belonging to the fourth respondent to the petitioner, and recovery of defaulted payments of hire charges. Revenue recovery steps was initiated at the behest of the fourth respondent. Exts.P1 and P5 are the demand notices issued in this regard. The petitioner objected to the demand on the ground that he had undertaken major repairs in order to put the Barges worthy of transport, and that he is entitled for reimbursement or set off the amounts so expended. 2. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court and in Ext.P4 judgment a direction was issued to the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the objection (Ext.P3) in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ext.P6 is the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in compliance with the directions. It is stated therein that, inspite of receipt of notice of hearing, the petitioner had not turned up and therefore it is presumed that he W.P(C) No.26471 of 2010-H 2 has no explanation to offer against continuance of revenue recovery steps. According to the petitioner the hearing notice was received by the former manager of his firm, who was not in good terms and was ultimately removed from service, and the petitioner was never informed about posting of the matter. 3. However, it is noticed that inspite of absence of the petitioner at the time of hearing, the fourth respondent ought to have considered merits of the claims on the basis of Ext.P3 objections and on the basis of the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment. Merely because the petitioner has not turned up for hearing, it was not proper on the part of the fourth respondent to decline the benefit if any eligible. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter needs reconsideration at the hands of the fourth respondent. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in view of Exts.P3 and P4, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for which the petitioner will appear before the 4th respondent, on 16.9.2010. The petitioner will also produce a copy W.P(C) No.26471 of 2010-H 3 of the judgment before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is directed to take a decision in the matter as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks thereafter. 5. All further steps of recovery pursuant to Exts.P1 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the fourth respondent in accordance with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab