IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 17336 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M.S.MARTIN, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKALA, KOCHI-21. 2. M.S.ANTONY, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKALA, KOCHI-21. 3. M.S.THOMAS, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKALA, KOCHI-21. 4. M.S.JEROME, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKALA, KOCHI-21. BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ARJUN S.RAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, VAZHAKKALA. 5. MR.P.V.JOSE, PULLUKKARAN HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT – 680 318. svs/ .........2/-.. ...2... 6. MR.V.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 28/1099, RATNASREE, KEEZHPALLY CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-20. 7. MR.M.K.SUKUMARA PILLAI, AVITTAM, VALLANJAMABLAM, KOCHI-16. 8. MRS.S.OMANA AMMA, AVITTAM, VALLANJAMABLAM, KOCHI-16. R1-R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R5-8 BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WPC. NO.17336/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16/04/1997 IN O.P.676/96, 677/96, 678/96 & 679/96 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. P2: COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION NO.105/2005 BEFORE CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. P3: COPY OF ANOTHER EXECUTION PETIITON NO.106/2005 BEFORE CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM AT ERNAKULAM. P4: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITON NO.113/2005 BEFORE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. P5: COPY OF THE BRIEF SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT BEFORE STATE FORUM DATED 22/09/2003. P6: COPY OF ONE OF SUCH NOTICE IN EXECUTION IN E.A.104/2005 IN C.C. 677/96 BEFORE THE CDRF, COCHIN. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12/08/2009 IN E.A. NO.104/2005 IN O.P.677/96 BEFORE CDRF, ERNAKULAM. P8: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 24/03/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/03/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/03/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE E.A. 15/2010 IN E.P.113/2005 OF CDRF, ERNAKULAM. P12: COPY OF E.A.17/2010 IN E.P.104/2005. P13: COPY OF E.A. 19/2010 IN E.P.105/2005 BEFORE CDRF, ERNAKULAM. P14: COPY OF E.A.21/2010 IN E.P.106/2005 BEFORE CDRF, ERNAKULAM. P15: COPY OF E.A.16/2010 IN E.P.113/2005 BEFORE CDRF, ERNAKULAM. P16: COPY OF E.A.18/2010 IN E.P.104/2005 BEFORE CDRF,ERNAKULAM. Svs .................2/-.... ....2.... WPC.NO.17336/2010 P17: COPY OF E.A.20/2010 IN E.P.105/2005 BEFORE CDRF, ERNAKULAM. P18: COPY OF E.A.22/2010 IN E.P.106/2005 BEFORE CDRF, ERNAKULAM. P19: COPY OF THE DD BEARING NO.002739 DATED 24/06/2010 OF HDFC BANK LTD. FOR RS.3,50,000/- P20: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/JUDGMENT DEBTORS IN E.A.NOS.104,105,106 AND 113/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J -------------------------------------- - W.P(C) No.17336 of 2010-N ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition was filed challenging revenue recovery steps initiated at the behest of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. E.P.Nos.103/2005, 104/2005, 105/2005 and 106/2005 were filed by respondents 5 to 8 seeking execution of Ext.P1 common order passed by the said Forum, in O.P Nos.676/1996, 677/1996, 678/1996 and 679/1996. The petitioners herein are the respondents in those execution petitions. The petitioners resisted the execution proceedings by filing Exts.P11 to P14 petitions before the Forum, contending that the petitioners are not liable to be proceeded against in their personal capacity, since the opposite party in Ext.P1 is only a private limited company. Contention is that, eventhough the petitioners are directors, no execution steps can be initiated against them since they were not W.P(C) No.17336 of 2010-N 2 parties in the original proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The relief sought for in this writ petition is mainly on the premise that, pending consideration and disposal of Exts.P11 to P14 petitions by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it is not legally justifiable to proceed with coercive steps of recovery. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 11.6.2010 an interim stay was granted against the revenue recovery steps, subject to condition of the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- within two weeks thereof and another sum of Rs.3,50,000/- within two weeks thereafter. Subsequently, the time stipulated for payment was extended by virtue of an order dt.14.4.2010 issued in I.A.No.9366/2010. But since the petitioners failed to comply with the condition in full even before the extended dates, this Court had vacated the interim order. 3. Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 has brought to my notice that Exts.P11 to P14 applications were considered and dismissed by the Forum, through orders passed on 10.6.2010. Discarding the contentions raised, W.P(C) No.17336 of 2010-N 3 the Forum found that the execution petitions filed against the petitioners who are the directors of the company, is maintainable. A copy of the order issued in E.A.No.17/2010 in E.P. No.104/2005 in C.C.No.677/1996 was made available for my perusal. It is stated that similar orders were also issued dismissing other applications. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 further pointed out that, after dismissal of Ext.P11 to P14 applications, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not proceeding with further steps in the execution applications, because of pendency of this writ petition. In this regard, photocopy of an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 24.5.2011 is made available for my perusal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount of Rs.7 lakhs stipulated through the interim order issued by this Court has already been deposited by the petitioners and by virtue of such deposit, a major portion, including the entire principal amount now stands cleared payment. According to the petitioners the W.P(C) No.17336 of 2010-N 4 remaining amount pertains to interest and other expenses. Eventhough the petitioners are raising challenges against sustainability of the execution applications, I am not inclined to entertain such challenge in view of the orders already issued by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is now evident that the Forum had considered such objections and negatived the claims raised by the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, they have got effective remedy to challenge those orders in appeal, as provided under the relevant statute. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to refer the matter to Adalat for arriving at a settlement regarding payment of the balance amount due. It is expressed that the petitioners are willing to pay off the liability provided the respondents 5 to 8 is amenable for waiver of interest and other charges to the possible extent. However, such a suggestion has been declined by the counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 raising contention that the decrees in the case were passed W.P(C) No.17336 of 2010-N 5 as early as in 1997 and the respondents 5 to 8 were deprived of the fruits of the decree for a quite a long period. 7. However, I make it clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to seek such settlement before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and if there is any possibility of arriving a compromise settlement on the quantum of the balance amount payable, the Forum shall explore such possibility. 8. Since the issue raised regarding maintainability of the execution petitions had already been decided by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge on the same question in this writ petition. However, statutory remedy if any available against the decision of the Forum is left open. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners as stated above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab