* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 8th December, 2009
+ LPA 227/2006
ARUN KUMAR GOENKA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.S.S.Ray and Ms.Rakhi Ray, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: None CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. A recovery certificate dated 6.6.2002 was sought to be enforced against the appellant. The certificate in question has been issued by the Collector, Lucknow, UP. It is addressed to the Collector New Delhi. The certificate reads as under:-
"Against S/Shri Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd., and O.N. Goenka, s/o Shri K.N.Goenka, resident of K-13, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi Rs.58357394/- (+ illegible) is remaining due for recovery and whose moveable and immoveable property is situated in your District. Hence under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, the amount may be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the amount be sent to concerned LPA No.227/2006 Page 1 of 3 department directly. In this context kindly take the trouble of making future correspondence with them."
2. Now, the appellant is neither Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. nor O.N.Goenka, the two persons against whom the certificate is directed.
3. When sought to be executed against the appellant by a coercive process, a writ petition was filed alleging that the certificate, being not directed against the appellant, could not be executed against him.
4. The writ petition has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.11.2005 on the ground that the certificate has been issued from Lucknow and thus, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
5. It may be noted that in the writ petition, the validity of the recovery certificate was questioned on various grounds, but in appeal today, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant restrict submissions to only one. It is urged that the appellant does not question the legality and validity of the certificate but seeks relief pertaining to non execution thereof against the appellant for the reason, the certificate is not directed against the appellant. The appellant is not the person named in the certificate against whom recovery has to be effected.
6. It is trite that to be executed against the properties of a person or to be enforced by the coercive process of LPA No.227/2006 Page 2 of 3 imprisonment, a recovery certificate must disclose on its face that the same has to be executed by attachment of the property of the persons named in the certificate or by way of imprisonment (civil) of the person concerned.
7. This is not so on the face of the certificate in question.
8. The respondents are advised to obtain a proper certificate after following the process of law, if the respondent claims any joint and/or several liability of the appellant to clear the dues in its favour.
9. The appeal stands disposed of directing that the impugned certificate, contents whereof have been noted in para 1 above shall not be executed against the appellant either by way of attachment of his property or by detaining him in civil prison. It is made clear that it would be open to the respondent to obtain a proper recovery certificate after following the process of law and then execute the same as per law.
10. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE December 08, 2009/mm LPA No.227/2006 Page 3 of 3