IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22702 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.R. VISWANATHAN, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (RETD.), 7/649, VINAYAKA COLONY, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN 11 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD NO.II, PALAKKAD. BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 11814 OF 1996 DATED 7.4.2000 EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.RT. NO. 621/01/IR D DATED 16.6.2001 EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.2.2004 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.2.2004 SENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF FORM 10 DEMAND PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF LAND ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED 31.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF LAWYER NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.12.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 22702 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This is the second Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in the same matter. An amount of Rs. 23,284/- was withheld from petitioner's DCRG when he retired in 1989. However, he filed a Writ Petition after seven years, that is in 1996, which was disposed of by this Court vide Ext.P1 judgment directing the respondents to release DCRG as recovery is not made in terms of Rule 3 Part III KSR. Afte release of DCRG benefits, pursuant to the judgment revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the very same amount. Government Pleader rightly pointed out that since the rule above referred only prohibits withholding of retirement benefits, nothing bars the Government from recovering the loss caused to the Govt. within the period of limitation applicable to Govt. Even though this argument is tenable, respondents have not so far furnished details of amounts due from the petitioner. Petitioner has made only revenue authorities as respondents and consequently Irrigation Department has 2 not produced the proceedings under which petitioner is liable to pay compensation to the Government. In the circumstances, respondents are directed to issue copy of the proceedings under which petitioner is liable and then proceed for recovery. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the adjudication proceedings under which he is made liable, if the same is not tenable. W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to proceed for recovery only after serving copy of the proceedings under which petitioner is held liable. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3