IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17039 of 2005(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- K. JOSEPH, KUNNASSERIL HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.CLEETUS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PERUMEDU, IDUKKI. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR – R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17039/2005 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LR.NO.E1-1675/83 DTD. 11//11/93. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17/10/1996 IN O.P.NO.1870 OF 1994. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.B7-6924 DTD. 16/05/05. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.17039/2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, a revenue recovery notice issued against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.45,354/-. Petitioner submits that, he was a Forest Range Officer retired from service on 29.2.1984. It is stated that, long thereafter, by Ext.P1 a liability of Rs.45,354/- was fixed on the petitioner. Ext.P1 was challenged before this court in O.P.No.1870/1994. The Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment quashing Ext.P1, on the basis that the same was beyond the time limit prescribed in Note 3 Rule 3 Part-III KSR. The petitioner submits that, thereafter, revenue recovery action has again been initiated by Ext.P3, in May, 2005 and it is challenging Ext.P3 that this writ petition has been filed. 2 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the right that is asserted to recover the amount is by filing civil suit and not by the process of revenue recovery. Going through the counter affidavit filed, though there is justification in the argument, in my view, in the absence of a proper quantification of the liability, recovery proceedings initiated is not justified. It is the admitted case that no notice was issued to the petitioner any time the liability was quantified and if that be so, the recovery now attempted cannot be sustained. 3. The Government Pleader relies on the decision of the Patna High Court in Ram Binod Singh V. Bihar State Electricity Board(2008(1)KLT S.N.26(C.No.31) to contend that the recovery proceedings is sustainable. In my view, that judgment cannot be read as one enabling the respondents to initiate recovery proceedings at any point of time, that too without giving notice to the person against whom the proceedings are initiated. In this case admittedly proceedings are initiated without quantifying the liability of 3 the petitioner. In view of the above, Ext.P3 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi.