IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 35821 of 2002(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LIMITED, NEWSPRINT NAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&A) V.N.SREEDHARAN. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), VAIKOM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B.REMANI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.60521/2002 IN O.P.NO.35821/2002 --------- Dismissed 18/3/2008 Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(Rt).440/96/RD DTD.3/2/96. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 28/7/99 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 10/11/99 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.4/7/2001 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 COPY OF GOVT. ORDER G.O.(Rt)NO.1415/2001/RD DTD. 20/6/2001. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 14/8/2001 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE R.R. ACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.34 OF THE R.R.ACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6/11/2002 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.No.35821 OF 2002 ---------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, Hindustan Newsprint Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and a subsidiary of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. In connection with the acquisition proceedings in 1972, 13 posts were sanctioned including the post of Special Deputy Collector. Subsequently, by Ext.P1 eight staffs were allowed to be continued and the expenditure on this account is to be met from the head of account "2053-094-85" Special Staff for acquisition of land for the Newsprint Project and by the same G.O. the Special Land Acquisition Unit is abolished with effect from the forenoon of 1/3/1996. Normally one would have expected that the Government while issuing the G.O., were satisfied that the continuance of the office is not required for a longer period. In this connection it is to be noticed that the letters Exts.P2 and P3 would show that what was done in connection with the acquisition proceedings is only to attend 158 cases pending at that time. The continuance of such establishment even after the completion of 20 years, according to the petitioner, was uncalled for. But by -2- O.P.No.35821/2002 Ext.P5 G.O.(Rt) No.1415/2001/Rd dated 20/6/2001 based on the report of the Commissioner, Land Revenue, expost-facto sanction was accorded for continuance of 8 posts. In other words, from 1/3/1996 to 20/6/2001 the staffs were continuing without any order issued by the Government. That is why an expose-facto order has been issued. In other words, the Government was regularising the continuance of the staffs beyond March, 1996 as notified in Ext.P1 by issuing a fresh notification after five years period. Subsequently, the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.18,77,902/- towards establishment charges and revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him by serving Exts.P7 and P8 demand notices. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing this original petition seeking to quash Exts.P7 and P8 demand notices. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Collector, it is averred that the establishment charges of the Land Acquisition Unit will be met initially by the Government and subsequently reimbursed by Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. In view of the expost-facto order issued (Ext.P5) it is stated that the petitioner is bound to pay the amount. But there is no averment in the counter affidavit with reference to the various letters produced by the petitioner as to what is the justification for continuance of the staff. As a matter of fact, there are only few cases -3- O.P.No.35821/2002 pending and whether the staff continued in the Unit had attended other works also. If, as a matter of fact, they had little work in connection with the Land Acquisition proceedings of the petitioner Company and were attending various other works of the Revenue Department, then naturally the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the entire salary of the staff, as it can only be proportionate to the work involved. But neither parties have placed any details regarding this. Further considering the fact that the petitioner itself is a subsidiary of the Hindustan Paper Corporation and the amounts are sought to be recovered by the Government, the matter should not have been dragged to this Court rather the matter should have been set at rest by mutual consultation and discussion. 3. In the circumstances, I think it is a fit case where the matter should be resolved at the Government level. Accordingly, I direct the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala to nominate any Government Secretary preferably, the Law Secretary, and if not, any other Secretary, who may call the parties and come to a decision, whereupon such decision shall be binding on the parties. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, for information and compliance. Till then the revenue recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance and thereafter, it will proceed subject to the -4- O.P.No.35821/2002 decision that may be taken as directed above. Original Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv. -5- O.P.No.35821/2002 P.R.RAMAN, J. -------------------------- O.P.NO.35821 OF 2002 -------------------------- JUDGMENT 18th March, 2008