IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 23969 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ GEORGE JAMES S/O.JAMES AGED 41, VETTAMVELIL (H) PADINJAREKKARA P.O.,VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY VAIKOM 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY COLLECTORATE P.O.,KOTTAYAM GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 23969 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) notices issued against the petitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The notice was issued on account of the petitioner's non compliance with the conditions of Exts. P2 and P4 permits, which permitted him to mine 250 metric tons of sand each. The licence included conditions and one of them required the petitioner to back fill the excavated land and the allegation was that this condition has not been complied with. Petitioner has disputed the liability and finally Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) revenue recovery notices were issued to him. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed. 3. Though in the writ petition several contentions have been raised disputing the very liability of the petitioner, I do not think that at this stage, it is necessary for this Court to examine the correctness of those contentions, as in my view Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) revenue recovery notices deserves to be quashed on the ground that the liability that is WPC 23969/08 :2 : sought to be enforced against the petitioner has not been quantified with notice to him. 4. It is the settled position of law that when the liability of a defaulter is quantified, he should be put on notice and that his version should also be taken into account. That apart, since in response to Exts. P5 and P6 notices, petitioner has also given Ext.P7 reply disputing the liability, that also is a matter which the 2nd respondent should address and examine. 5. Therefore, leaving open the contentions on the merits of the liability that is sought to be enforced against the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to examine Exts. P5 and P6 in the light of Ext.P7 reply and also hear the petitioner on the liability, if any. Further, the liability of the petitioner sought to be enforced must be quantified with notice to him. Once the aforesaid process is completed, it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for realising the liability, if any, found to be due. In order to enable the respondents to reexamine the matter as above and quantify the liability in the manner as directed, Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) will stand quashed. WPC 23969/08 :3 : 6. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue notice and decide the matter as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp