IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30463 of 2008(B)
1. SANJAY GUPTA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OFKERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR RR, ERNAKULAM.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
5. PRIMA INDUSTRIES LTD.,
For Petitioner :A.N.RAJAN BABU
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No.30463 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P11 and P11(a), which are notices
issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeks a direction to restrain
respondents 1 to 4 from taking any coercive step to recover the amount
demanded as per Exts.P11 and P11(a) and for a declaration that Exts.P11
and P11(a) are issued without jurisdiction and in violation of Ext.P1
agreement and that the amount demanded is not an amount due within the
meaning of Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act. He also seeks a
direction to the third respondent to dispose of Ext.P12 objection and to
restrain respondents 2 to 4 from further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P11
and P11(a).
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rajan Babu,
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned
Government Pleader.
3. Petitioner approached this court earlier and it culminated in
Ext.P7 judgment. Therein the writ petition came to be closed leaving
freedom to respondents 1 and 3 to proceed for recovery. Ext.P10 is an order
passed in AR. 41 of 2005, that is apparently an arbitration case filed by the
WPC.30463/2008. 2
petitioner, which came to be dismissed finding that there is no justification
to entertain the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
the petitioner has moved a review petition in Exts.P7 and P10.
4. I feel that having regard to Exts.P7 and P10 judgment I need
not consider the question raised in the writ petition and this writ petition is
dismissed. But this will be without prejudice to the contentions of the
petitioner in the review petitions filed against Exts.P7 and P10.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb