IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1132 of 2010(N)
1. A.A.KARIM, S/O. APPAKHAN, AGED 67,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE, WARD NO.2,
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, APPEALS,
4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.1132 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of January , 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the assessing
authority imposing the penalty under Section 67, the
petitioner has filed Ext.P4 appeal before the third
respondent. However, during the pendency of the said
proceedings before the appellate authority, revenue
recovery proceedings were initiated against him, which was
challenged in W.P.(C) No.34673/2009 leading to Ext.P8
Judgment.
2. As borne by Ext.P8 Judgment, the matter was
disposed of directing the third respondent to pass final
orders on Ext.P4 appeal in the manner specified therein.
3. The Ext.P10 is the final order passed by the third
respondent which however is dated ‘manually’ as 18/9/2009.
This shows that, even on the date of passing Ext.P8 verdict
dated 4/12/2009, the third respondent appellate authority
-2-
W.P.(C) No.1132 of 2010
had passed Ext.P10 order, which was not brought to the
notice of this Court. However, vide Ext.P8 Judgment, since
this Court has only intercepted the recovery proceedings
during pendency of the appeal filed before statutory
authority. The petitioner has also got a case that Ext.P10
was passed only much later, showing a ‘prior date’.
4. The direction contained in Ext.P10 appeal appears
to be more in favour of the petitioner, holding that the
assessing authority was not justified in denying an
opportunity of hearing before imposing the penalty under
Section 67. Hence, the petitioner was declared as entitled
to be heard before the proceedings were finalised,
simultaneously giving necessary directions to the assessing
authority in this regard. The petitioner’s case is that the
wording in Ext.P10 rather makes the opportunity of hearing
as an ’empty formality’ and contends that the impugned
order was not actually set aside but amounts to be kept in
abeyance, to see whether the petitioner/appellant appears
-3-
W.P.(C) No.1132 of 2010
before the assessing authority for availing the opportunity
of hearing and if not, to have it revived as such.
5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the order
passed by the appellate authority, holding that the
petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity for
hearing before passing Ext.P3 order, it cannot but be held
that Ext.P3 is no more valid and existing. Accordingly, the
first and second respondents are directed to finalise the
proceedings afresh, in terms of Ext.P8 verdict already
passed by this Court and of course after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proceedings
shall be finalised within 2 months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this Judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
(JUDGE)
nl