Trichur Wholesale Co-Operative vs The Tahsildar (R.R) on 18 September, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Trichur Wholesale Co-Operative vs The Tahsildar (R.R) on 18 September, 2020

Bench: T.R.Ravi

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

    FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 27TH BHADRA, 1942

                     WP(C).No.21155 OF 2015(T)


PETITIONER:

              TRICHUR WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE
              CONSUMER STORES LIMITED NO.R 239
              TRICHUR-1,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RADHAKRISHNAN.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
              SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
              SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
              SRI.S.K.HARISH
              SRI.T.C.KRISHNA
              SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN (P-212)
              SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE


RESPONDENT:

              THE TAHSILDAR (R.R)
              OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THRISSUR-
              680001.


              GP - SMT. RANJITA G.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
18.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.21155 OF 2015(T)

                                      2



                                JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Pratap Abraham Varghese on behalf of the petitioner and Smt.Renjita on behalf of the respondent. The writ petition has been filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext.P7. Ext.P7 says that the demand is towards dues, which are categorised as labour dues and co-operative dues. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the labour dues have already been settled in terms of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. The statement filed on behalf of the respondents confirms the above fact. It is also stated in the statement that no intimation has been received from the requisition authority as regards the co-operative dues. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the co-operative dues have been kept in abeyance by this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment.

In the above circumstances, writ petition is allowed and Ext.P7 is quashed. It is made clear WP(C).No.21155 OF 2015(T) 3 that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Government initiating steps for revenue recovery, if there are any co-operative dues as mentioned in Ext.P7, which still requires to be recovered.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE Pn 18/09 WP(C).No.21155 OF 2015(T) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES UNDER SEC.34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.15-1-2015 IN WPC 1072/2009.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.2-3-2012 IN WPC 34902/2011.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.26-3-2013 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.6-6-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court