Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Anitha Rajeev vs The District Collector on 30 June, 2008

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                              PRESENT:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

                  TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/14TH PHALGUNA 1934

                                     WP(C).No. 5945 of 2013 (P)
                                         --------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------

            ANITHA RAJEEV, AGED 45 YEARS,
            W/O.RAJEEV, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            ISLAND SHRIMP FARMING (P) LTD,
            RESIDING AT KALATHILPARAMBIL, NJARAKKAL, KOCHI TALUK,
            ERNAKULAM.

            BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

        1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682030.

        2. TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
            OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, KOCHI - 682031.

        3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
            NJARAKKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM - 682506.

        4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
            ADAK (AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE KERALA),
            TC 15/1494,'REEJA', MINCHIN ROAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

            R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN
                      R4 BY SRI.C.A.JOY,SC

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
            05-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 5945 of 2013 (P)



                                   APPENDIX




PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1.  TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/6/2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
             TAHSILDAR.

EXHIBIT P2.  TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
             RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3.  TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3/1/2013 PASSED IN WPC
             NO.321/2013 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4.  TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.H-48703 DATED 17/1/2013 ISSUED BY
             THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5.  TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.48945 DATED 15/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE
             3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6.  TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16/1/2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
             4TH RESPONDENT.



RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL


                                                  //TRUE COPY//



                                                  P.A. TO JUDGE




LSN



                           ANTONY DOMINIC, J
                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                             W.P.(C).5945/2013
                                 - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 5th day of March, 2013
             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                  JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

2. Petitioner is the defaulter of a loan availed of from the 4th respondent. Default committed led to initiation of revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext.P1 notice. This notice shows that the liability of the petitioner was Rs.9,07,957/- together with interest and collection charges. At that stage, petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C).21978/08. That writ petition was disposed of directing that the liability be re- quantified. Accordingly, the liability was re-quantified and Ex.P2 was issued. In Ext.P2, the liability was reduced to Rs.3,62,417.46. Further, petitioner was also allowed to remit the amount in 60 instalments together with 8% interest. Subsequently, petitioner filed W.P.(C).321/13, when on account of the default in complying with Ext.P2, recovery proceedings were threatened to be initiated. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the petitioner to clear the W.P.(C).5945/13 2 defaulted dues and on that basis, enjoy the benefit of Ext.P2. Petitioner says that in compliance with Ext.P3 judgment, she has cleared the liability till February, 2013 and in spite of it, she is being threatened with recovery action on the strength of Ext.P1. It is with this allegation this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent clarifies that from October 2012, instalments are in default.

4. As already stated, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite having paid the instalments in compliance with Exts.P2 and P3 judgment till February, 2013, she is being threatened with recovery proceedings. If, as stated by the petitioner, there is no default, there cannot be any threat of recovery action. On the other hand, if default has been committed as claimed by the 4th respondent, respondents are free to continue the recovery action.

Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge