IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10842 of 2008(N)
1. PADMAVATHY, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No. 10842 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the widow of late Sri.Madhavan. According to her
she and her husband jointly purchased three and a half cents of property
with a house in it. According to the petitioner, during the lifetime of
Sri.Madhavan, he had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and she is
in possession and enjoyment of the property. According to her, she is
maintaining her life from the meager income derived from a small shop.
The second respondent has served Ext.P4 recovery notice to the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, it is without giving an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner. It is her case that she filed Ext.P5 representation.
According to her, the property is not liable for any debt incurred by her son.
Accordingly, she seeks to quash Ext.P4 notice.
2. The additional third respondent, namely, the Welfare Board
has filed a statement inter alia stating that the respondent had initiated
assessment of stage carriage bearing KL-7 D 4118 for the period from 1997-
2004. In order to assess the vehicle notices were issued under Section 8(1)
of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act to
WPC.10842/2008. 2
Sri.M.K.Satheesh to appear for conducting an inquiry in respect of the
employees employed by him in the stage carriage. He appeared and
deposed that he is the registered owner of the stage carriage and he along
with Sri. K.G. Raveendran, Sri. Subramoniam and Sri. Satheesh were the
employees (Ext.R3(a)). Provisional determination order was issued . Since
no objections were filed, the provisional determination order was confirmed
and issued the final determination order dated 29.6.1999. In the appeal
preferred the matter was remanded back. After remand a revised order
dated 31.12.2001 was issued for the same amount. A provisional
determination order dated 30.8.1999 was issued to Sri.Satheesh for the
period 1997-98. Again no objections were filed and the provisional
determination order was confirmed and final determination order was
issued. Sri. Satheesh filed appeal, which is still pending before the
Government. For the periods 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 final
determination orders were issues. Since Sri. Satheesh did not remit any
amount for the periods from 1997 to 2004, revenue recovery requisition was
issued by the third respondent to the second respondent to initiate recovery
steps against Sri.Satheesh.
WPC.10842/2008. 3
2. There is no challenge against the determination orders,
apparently on the basis of which recovery notices have been issued. I am
not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the recovery as such.
What is challenged is only the recovery notices. The ground taken is that
the will executed by Sri.Madhavan is apparently in regard to his share to the
property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed.
3. Learned Government Pleader was directed to get instruction
as to why property of the petitioner is proceeded against for recovery of the
amount due from her son. Learned Government Pleader submits that the
petitioner had in fact filed two civil suits and both of them were dismissed
as not pressed. The fact of the filing of the civil suits is not mentioned in
the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner then points out that the
petitioner is a widow aged 65 years and the proceedings may be concluded
in accordance with law. It was argued that having regard to the share of the
petitioner recovery cannot be made. Going by Ext.P3, which is purported to
be the Will, it has only one attesting witness. Learned counsel for the
petitioner is not in a position to tell me how the will can be treated as a valid
will. If that be so, in regard to the right of Sri.Madhavan it must be taken
that Sri.Madhavan died intestate leaving the heirs including the petitioner
WPC.10842/2008. 4
and also her son. If that be so, there cannot be anything illegal in
proceeding against the share of the defaulter for the amount due from him.
Subject to making it clear that proceedings under the Revenue Recovery
Act can be proceeded strictly in accordance with law, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb