Kerala High Court
Joshila M.T vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15308 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JOSHILA M.T., AGED 47 YEARS,
D/O M.T.VISWANATHAN, KALLINGAL HOUSE,
THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673636.
BY ADVS.
EBIN MATHEW
P.J.MATHEW
AKHILA SHOJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURIES,
DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES PATTOM,
PATTOM PALACE P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
2 DIRECTOR OF TREASURY,
DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES PATTOM,
PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM
CONFERENCE HALL, COLLECTORATE RD,
UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676505.
4 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),
THIRURANGADI TALUK, THIRURANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306.
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, THENHIPPALAM VILLAGE,
THENHIPALM P.O., THIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALPPURAM, PIN - 673636.
BY ADV.
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15308 OF 2024
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that her father,
Sri.M.T.Viswanathan, unfortunately died on
25.03.2013; and that, on 28.04.2022, she was
served with a copy of notice alleging that he
had created some liability, while he was in the
services of the Sub Treasury, as a Senior
Accountant.
2. The petitioner alleges that, though the
afore allegations against her father are not
correct and the stated liability unenforceable
for various reasons, including being hit by the
rigour of limitation, it would not be necessary
for her to establish it for the singular reason
that the recovery now sought to be enforced
against her is impermissible in law because,
even if her father is presumed to be so liable,
she cannot be held responsible for the same,
WP(C) NO. 15308 OF 2024
except to the extent she has inherited any
property from him. She asserts that she has
obtained no such property from her father and
that her assets are either self acquired or
derived from her grandfather; and hence that
Exts.P3 to P5 orders and notices are illegal and
unlawful. She thus prayed that the said orders
and notices be set aside and that the
respondents be directed not to proceed against
her in any manner whatsoever.
3. In response to the afore submissions of
Sri.Ebin Mathew - learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Government
Pleader - Smt.C.S.Sheeja, submitted that there
is no cause for the petitioner to have
approached this Court because, the Authorities
would proceed against her only with respect to
properties which are inherited from her father;
and that too, as per law. She added that the
WP(C) NO. 15308 OF 2024
recovery now being attempted is against the self
acquired property of the petitioner's father and
his other estates, to the extent to which it has
derived upon his legal heirs, and no more.
4. The afore submissions of the learned
Senior Government Pleader renders it luculent
that the apprehensions of the petitioner stand
fully allayed, since the impugned orders would
apply against her, only to the extent to which
she has inherited properties/estate from her
father. I do not, therefore, think that she is
required to harbour any further apprehension
because, she can always show cause against the
notices and orders before the competent
Authority, that she has not so obtained.
In the afore circumstances, recording the
afore submissions of the learned Senior
Government Pleader, I allow this Writ Petition,
granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer
WP(C) NO. 15308 OF 2024
objections against Exts.P3 to P5, asserting that
she has not inherited any estate/property from
her father; and if this is done within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, the competent Authority will
consider the same and issue appropriate orders,
after affording her an opportunity of being
heard, without any avoidable delay thereafter.
Needless to say, until such time as the
afore is done and the resultant order
communicated to the petitioner, all further
coercive recovery action against her or her
properties will stand deferred.
I, however, reiteratingly clarify that I
have not set aside Ext.P3 order or the
subsequent notices; and that all which is
reserved for the petitioner is her liberty to
show cause against them to the afore effect.
To paraphrase, Exts.P3 to P5 would operate
WP(C) NO. 15308 OF 2024
against the petitioner, only as regards any
property which she may have inherited from her
father and no other.
After I dictated this part of the judgment,
Sri.Ebin Mathew - learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that his client also has a
case edified on the principles of limitation
against the demand now made against her father.
He thus requested that this be left open, in
case it becomes necessary to be impelled in
future.
No doubt, this Court has not considered
this aspect at all, and it is left undecided.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C) NO. 15308 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15308/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
KOZHIKODE DATED 28/04/2022
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY
ADV.K.B.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN DATED
02/07/2022
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.VG2/12502/1989
DATED 29/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOVERY
OF SUM OTHER THAN PUBLIC REVENUE DUE ON
LAND ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
18/03/2024
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20/03/2024
EXHIBIT P 6 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.821/1/2017
OF THENHIPALAM S.R.O.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
30/11/2021 IN RFA 628/2015 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
