IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14658 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. KAMALAKSHI, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.LATE VIJAYAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2. VIJU RAJ, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.LATE VIJAYAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. MR.BABU KARUKAPADATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR), FORTKOCHI, KOCHI-1. 3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. DEEPA.K.R. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 14658 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed essentially in the nature of a roving enquiry, petitioner trying to plead total ignorance of any liability referable to the Abkari laws. Holding out the impugned revenue recovery notice, it is pleaded that the petitioner does not know on what account the amounts are claimed. Ext.P1 and P1(a) definitely state that they relate to compensation amounts referable to Abkari transactions. On instructions, learned Government Pleader states that government had paid amounts by way of compensation on account of Vypin Liquor Tragedy and the liability covered by the impugned notice is for the amount payable to the government by the Contractor in question on account of such compensation and interest due to the government referable to the delay in payment to the government of such amount. It is also stated that notice was issued in 2003. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot plead ignorance information about the proceedings particularly, when the right to WP(C) 14658/2009 2 information has a settled modality through the RTA Act. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P1 proceedings. I am not persuaded to accept the request on behalf of the petitioner that further proceedings should stand deferred on payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. However it is ordered that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, the principal amount covered by Ext.P1, within a period of two weeks, the competent authority will consider Ext.P2 and take a final decision thereon in accordance with law. All other issues left open. Issue copy of this judgment urgently. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/29/5