P. Pankajakshan vs District Welfare Officer on 11 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27503 of 2007(Y)


1. P. PANKAJAKSHAN, S/O. CHATHU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR,

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/10/2007

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ===============
                W.P.(C) NO. 27503 OF 2007 Y
               =====================

           Dated this the 11th day of October, 2007

                        J U D G M E N T

This writ petition was filed when revenue recovery

proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for realisation of

the dues of the 1st respondent for the year 2004-05. Exhibits P2

and P3 are the notices that are issued under the provisions of the

Revenue Recovery Act. The specific contention of the petitioner is

that the final determination order in relation to 2004-05 was not

served and therefore, he could not pursue the matter in appeal.

2. When the matter came up for orders, in view of the

averments made in this writ petition, standing counsel for the

respondent was directed to ascertain the facts and file a

statement. In the statement that is filed, it is stated that the

provisional determination order for the period 2004-05 in respect

of the vehicle was passed on 25/4/05 and that it was sent to the

petitioner under registered post acknowledgment due. It is

stated that the said order was accepted by the petitioner on

WPC 27503/07
: 2 :

2/5/05. It is also stated that subsequently with notice to the

petitioner, enquiry was held and final determination order was

passed on 1/9/05 and that the same was also sent and served on

the petitioner on 30/11/05.

Thus it is evident that the averment made in this writ

petition that the final determination order for the year 2004-05

was not served on the petitioner is totally incorrect and the

petitioner has not approached this court disclosing the true facts.

Writ petition deserves to be dismissed and I do so. In view of

the supression made in this writ petition, I am not inclined to

pass an order allowing instalment facility even.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp