IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 31844 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SALIM MATHEW,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW JOHN(LATE),AMBAKKATTU HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA REP.BY REP.CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT.SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISEL COMMISSIONER,COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KATTAKKADA EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLADER SRI. V MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 31844 OF 2009 (A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the licensee of arrack shops in Group-1 in Kattakada Excise Range, during the year 1993-1994. The appropriation of the departmental management fee collected during the year was the subject matter of O.P.No.14957/1995 filed by the petitioner and that Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P1. It was directed that the amount collected shall be given credit to the petitioner and on that basis all demands made against the petitioner were set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. State filed appeals against the aforesaid batch of judgments which was dismissed by Ext.P3, a common order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4988/02 and connected cases. That order was rendered as early as on 19th February, 2008. 2. It is stated that while the controversy between the parties was remaining unsettled, in the year 2000, an Amnesty Scheme was announced by the respondents. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued Ext.P2 notice, but however, the benefit of WPC.No. 31844/09 :2 : Ext.P1 judgment was not granted. In fact, as the issue regarding appropriation of departmental management fee was pending, at that point of time, in the notices, the amount was not given credit in his account. As a result of that, petitioner did not avail of the benefit of the scheme. 3. After Ext.P1 judgment was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and Ext.P3 order was passed by the Apex Court on 19th February, 2008, on 26.5.2008, Ext.P4 Amnesty Scheme was announced by the respondent. The period of Ext.P4 Scheme has been extended till 31.3.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made an application for the benefit of Ext.P4 Amnesty Scheme. That has now been replied by Ext.P7 dated 2.2.2010, where the benefit of Exts.P1 and P3 judgments and orders are declined to be extended to the petitioner stating that the respondents have sought “revision” of the judgment in SLP No.19586/2007. 4. Evidently, as at present, the right of the petitioner to have the departmental management fee appropriated is covered by Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P3 Order. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that SLP NO.19586/07 in which “revision” is WPC.No. 31844/09 :3 : allegedly filed as mentioned in Ext.P7 does not relate to the petitioner. In any case, having regard to Exts.P1 and P3, so long as the judgment and the order remains binding on the parties, the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of the said judgment and order. If that be so, he is entitled to have his request for the benefit of Amnesty Scheme 2008 considered giving him the benefit of Exts.P1 and P3. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P7 and directing the respondents to extend the petitioner the benefit of Ext.P4, 2008 Amnesty Scheme giving him the benefit of Exts.P1 and P3. This shall be done before 15th of March,2010. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/