Kerala High Court
K.N.Radha vs The State Of Kerala & Others on 5 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 19156 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:
K.N.RADHA, W/O.C.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR (LATE),,
KIZHAKKE NANGOLATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEVAYUR,,
CALICUT-17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, LOCAL SELF
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.
2 CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, CORPORATION
OFFICE, CALICUT BEACH P.O.,, KOZHIKODE-673 032.
3 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE,, CORPORATION OFFICE,
CALICUT BEACH P.O.,, KOZHIKODE-673 032.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 009.
5 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR RR
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 009.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 19156 of 2011
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
==============================================================
W.P.(C) No.19156 of 2011
===================================================================================
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a retired Upper Division Clerk of Calicut
Corporation. She retired from service on 30.06.1999. It is
submitted by the petitioner that she was working in the
Council Department of the 2nd respondent from where she
was transferred to Non-Tax Department as per Ext.P1 order.
While she was working in that section, she retired from
service on 30.06.1999. Ext.P2 is the proceedings. After
retirement the petitioner received all her retirement benefits
from the 2nd respondent including DCRG. After about ten
years of her retirement Ext.P3 notice was received in which it
is stated that there is liability of an amount of Rs.69,936/- from
the petitioner and some other amount from two others. On
receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner made enquiry with the persons
W.P.(C). No. 19156 of 2011
mentioned in the same and came to know that earlier another
memo dated 25.09.2009 was served on them for recovery of
Rs.1,72,521/- as recommended by the Local Fund Accounts
Committee to the alleged loss due to their omission in taking
timely action to proceed with the appeal filed against the
dismissal of S.T No.750/1999. It is also the case of the
petitioner that the said ST case was filed for recovering the
arrears of the bus stand fee due from the licensees. It is
submitted that though this memo was issued to the petitioner
and other employees namely P.V.Muraleedharan, Reghunath
UDC, Krishnachandran UDC, Justine Suresh UDC, the
petitioner has not received the same. Ext.P4 is the memo dated
25.05.2009. When the petitioner came to know about Ext.P4,
it is informed that Muraleedharan mentioned in the above
memo submitted a detailed reply and the same is applicable
for other employees including the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, it was solely due to the non-prosecution of the case
W.P.(C). No. 19156 of 2011
by the counsel for the 2nd respondent Corporation that
recovery from the contractor could not be made as the case
was dismissed for default and even before this Court, an
appeal was not filed. According to the petitioner, she and other
employees are no way responsible for the loss, if any, sustained
in this regard. While Ext.P3 was received, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, the petitioner stated that the order
in ST No.750/1999 was passed after her retirement and that
the said case was dismissed for default and that she was not
liable to pay any amount. It is also the case of the petitioner
that as per Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, the
claim of the 2nd respondent is barred by limitation. Ext.P5
reply was received by the 2nd respondent on 06.07.2009 and a
receipt to that effect was issued to her as evident by Ext.P6.
Since no action was taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner
on 01.12.2009 had again submitted a detailed representation
to the 2nd respondent as Exts.P7 and P8. According to the
W.P.(C). No. 19156 of 2011
petitioner, she was under the bona fide belief that the 2 nd
respondent would have verified the records and would have
dropped the proceedings initiated against her. But, in the 1 st
week of July. 2011, the petitioner was served with Ext.P9
revenue recovery notice. Aggrieved by the same, this writ
petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. I also
heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. When this writ petition came up for consideration
on 14.07.2011, this Court admitted the writ petition and
granted an interim stay of recovery proceedings. Even now,
the interim stay is in force. A perusal of the counter affidavit
filed by the respondent Corporation would show that the
similarly situated persons like the petitioner approached this
Court earlier by filing WP(C) No.10888 of 2010 and this
Court considered the matter and was pleased to quash the
W.P.(C). No. 19156 of 2011
recovery proceedings as against the 1st petitioner.
4. I perused Ext.P3 notice and the reply submitted by
the petitioner to Ext.P3 as evident by Ext.P5. Ext.p5 is dated
06.07.2009, where as Ext.P3 is dated 26.06.2009. As evident
by Ext.P6, the reply was received by the Corporation on
06.07.2009. This Court quashed the revenue recovery
proceedings against the 1st petitioner in Ext.R2(a), observing
that the recovery proceedings was after a unilateral
adjudication initiated against the 1st petitioner and hence it
will not stand. In that case, the 1 st petitioner submitted reply
disputing his liability. As far as the 1st petitioner in that writ
petition is concerned, who disputed the liability, the
Corporation proceeded with the recovery and this Court
observed that the Corporation could not have assumed the role
of the Arbitrator. In this case also, the petitioner disputed the
liability by submitting Ext.P5 and it is evident from Ext.P6
acknowledgment. I think the same principle in Ext.R2(a) is
W.P.(C). No. 19156 of 2011
applicable to the petitioner also in this case. It is conceded by
the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the writ
appeal filed against Ext.R2(a) judgment is dismissed.
5. In such circumstances, according to me, the
petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of Ext.R2(a) judgment.
Therefore, this writ petition can be allowed in the light of
Ext.R2(a) judgment.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. All steps
including the revenue recovery proceedings against the
petitioner based on Exts.P3, P4 and P9 are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 19156 of 2011
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19156/2011
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01/06/1996
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30/06/1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
26/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 25/05/2009
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
06/07/2009 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
06/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2N
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01/12/2009 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
01/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE DATED
02/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22/03/2012 IN WPC NO.10888/2010 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
