IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29719 of 2005(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.SWAMINATHAN, VIDYA BHAVAN, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM. 2. SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT FOR R1 & R2 G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.6.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.6.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.6.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2004 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS DATED 15.12.99 TO PETITIONER. EXT.P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS DATED 15.12.99 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENTS DATED 15.12.99 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENTS DATED 15.12.99 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENTS DATED 15.12.99 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER BY HIS COUNSEL TO RESPONDENTS NO.1 DATED 1.1.2000 EXT.P9(a) TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT AND POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SIGNED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.3.2001 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2001 IN ANSWER TO EXT.P10 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19.1.2003 EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HO 'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC 20977/2004 DATED 11.2.2005 EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT ALONG WITH EXT.P13 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.6.2005 EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO. R117048/2001 DATED 17.8.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 29719 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of property tax due to the Kollam Corporation for the three rooms leased out by the petitioner to LIC and other lessees at high rent. In the reply to the allegations, the Secretary has fairly conceded that arrears are time barred. However, according to him amount is received because petitioner offered the amount. In other words, petitioner's charity led to collection of tax. I have no doubt in my mind that failure to collect tax in respect of commercial building let out at high rent is a highly irresponsible act on the part of the concerned officers of the Corporation. In fact before ordering vigilance enquiry by this Court, this Court asked the Secretary to furnish details of the officials responsible for it. He has furnished names and addresses of several officers who are continuing, transferred , retired, etc. Original tax amount involved was above Rs. 8 lakhs, part of which is paid by the petitioner. Besides failure to assess and recover the tax, it is also 2 seen that Kollam Corporation allowed mutation to be effected in the records of the Corporation when the petitioner sold the property to other parties. In other words, petitioner escaped from liability by selling the property and by getting the transfer recorded in the Corporation records without clearing the arrears of tax. I therefore direct the Director of Vigilance, Trivandrum, to refer the matter for vigilance enquiry by the concerned Dy. Superintendent of Police of the area, who will conduct enquiry without any delay and charge sheet those who are responsible. Based on enquiry report, disciplinary action should be taken against those found guilty by the Secretary. Secretary should render all assistance in the vigilance enquiry. 2. Petitioner's challenge against demand is disposed of with direction to the Secretary of the Corporation to verify the circumstances under which recovery is not made and he will decide the entitlement of the Corporation to recover the amount with reference to the Rules and pass detailed order after hearing the petitioner and after verifying the records. If any amount is not recoverable from the petitioner, there will be direction to Secretary to recover such amount 3 from the person who was in charge of collection of tax. If tax is time barred such amount should be recovered from the official concerned, who allowed the matter to get time barred. In other words, recovery should be made from the person whose duty it was to recover tax from the petitioner. In view of transfer of property, Secretary is directed to make fresh assessment taking note of annual rent, etc. and take final decision on the challenge against arrears within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Government Pleader will forward a copy of this judgment to the Director of Vigilance to order enquiry within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and Dy. Superintendent of Police will complete the enquiry within three months thereafter. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4