IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11150 of 2006(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, VECHIYOTTU, TALIPARAMBA, (IN CIVIL PRISON), THROUGH NEXT FRIEND, BROTHER IN LAW PURUSHOTHAMAN.V.S, S/O.SANKARAN, CHANDINI, PULIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. SHRI.L.G.SURESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11150 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings, which includes proposal for his arrest on account of non-payment of loss caused to the Government. Petitioner participated in forest auction and was successful bidder for purchase of teak poles and other forest articles. However, petitioner committed breach of the contract by failing to remit the sale consideration, which led to re- auction of the articles at the risk and cost of the petitioner. On re-sale, the Government sustained loss and in terms of tender conditions, differential amount is demanded from the petitioner towards loss caused to the Government. There is no scope for interference with the demand because the amount sought to be recovered is strictly in accordance with the terms agreed by the petitioner while he participated in the tender. Therefore, the amount can be recovered from the petitioner and challenge against the demand is rejected. 2. The next question is whether petitioner can be arrested WP(C) No.11150/2006 -2- in recovery proceedings under Section 65 of the Act. Section 65 entitles arrest when there is failure to pay by the person who has means to pay. It is for the recovery authorities to conduct enquiry discreetly about the wealth of the petitioner including those concealed and held binami and if petitioner is found to have means and refused to pay, he can be arrested and detained in prison. His life style itself will be indicative of his means to pay. Therefore, respondents can conduct enquiry and if petitioner is maintaining a comfortable living, then obviously, he has the capacity to pay and in that event, he can be arrested. The respondents are directed to arrest the petitioner, only if he is found to have means on enquiry, but he still refuses to pay the amount. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg