IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28598 of 2007(D)
1. ABDUL NAZEER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
5. STATE OF KERALA
6. K.S.MANI
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/10/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 28598 OF 2007 D
=====================
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an assignee of 6th respondent. The 6th
respondent and others were partners of a firm, which had
defaulted in paying their dues to the 4th respondent. In view of
the fact that he is an assignee of the 6th respondent, the
petitioner apprehends that revenue recovery action, which has
originally initiated against the 6th respondent will be continued
against him also.
2. According to the petitioner, he is a bonafide purchaser
and as the partners themselves are in possession of sufficient
resources to discharge their liabilities, in fairness, action should
be initiated at least at the first instance against the partners of
the firm. With this prayer, petitioner has submitted Ext.P10
representation to the 3rd respondent, which is pending his
consideration. Petitioner is also relying on Division Bench
judgment of this Court in St.Arnold Divine Works Society v.
State of Kerala (2006(3) KLT S.N. Case No.67), where this
WPC 28598/07
: 2 :
court has held as follows:
Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who purchased the
property for valid consideration before attachment and,
therefore, that property cannot be sold for the purpose
of the dues of the defaulter. Petitioner is not a
guarantor, but, he is a total stranger to the defaulter.
He, being a bonafide purchaser, the revenue recovery
proceedings taken against the petitioner is wholly
unwarranted.
In view of the fact, it is the petitioner’s specific contention
that the partners of the firm themselves have enough resources
to meet the liability, it is only proper that this prayer is
considered in the light of the law as laid down in the judgment
referred to above.
3. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing
the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10
representation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with
a copy of a judgment referred to herein above before the 3rd
respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp