The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be initiated against a person unless they are a defaulter as per the Act, and there is a predetermined amount or admitted liability by the person. The judgment also emphasizes the need for proper assessment and notice before initiating recovery proceedings.

M. Ramachandran, J.

The challenge in this set of Original Petitions is made against recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners at the instance of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Corporation), first respondent.

2. One Abdulla Kunhi is the petitioner in OJPL No. 223/2000, filed on 3/1/2000. The revenue recovery proceedings by way of Ext. P3 stand stayed, but this Court bad given liberty to the respondents to proceed against the properties, of his deceased father.

3. Reference had been made in the O.P. to the business activities of the petitioner's deceased father, Mohammed Kunhi. He was running a proprietary concern, engaged in transporting business, in the name "Yen Yen Yes Transports*. He had been one of the transporting contractors to the Corporation in respect of levy sugar, to be lifted from Mills outside the State to destinations within the State of Kerala. Petitioner held a general Power of Attorney of his father, and had office at Kalamassery. Ext. P1 is the notarised power of attorney; Ext. P2 is produced as the invitation offender, for the block months of July to September, 1999. It is admitted that the offer stood accepted.

4. Thereafter, there is reference, to Ext. P3 revenue recovery notice issued to him, at the instance of the Corporation. It is submitted that he is not answerable to any of the claims, since he is only an attorney, acting under Ext. P1 and was not aware of the nature of the transactions that had taken place after the death of his father, and there was no notice about the liability adjudged, which according to Ext. P3 come to Rs. 1,30,39,169/-, and therefore the said proceedings were illegal if not misconceived. His stand could best be appreciated from the averments in paragraph 4 of the O.P. extracted herein below:

"Pursuant to Ext. P2 tender was submitted and the work was awarded to the petitioner's father being the lowest tenderer. Subsequently the petitioner's father became ill and he expired on 22.8.99. It appears that in the absence of the father the brokers and employees engaged for the purpose of transporting sugar from the factories based on the work order issued by the 1st respondent were not earnest and the work was not executed promptly. The petitioner has now received a notice under S.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act demanding Rs.1303W6W- due to the Civil Supplies Corporation for the period from 1999-2000. There is bo reason to issue the above notice to the petitioner as he has not entered into any contract with the 1st respondent and no amount is due from him".

5. Apparently, taking note of the interim orders passed in the Original Petition, Corporation had taken steps to proceed against the deceased contractor's assets, and recovery proceedings Binder the Revenue Recovery Act had been initiated against the legal representatives. O.P No. 12616 of 2000 has been filed by Abdulla Kunhi himself complaining that in spite of stay orders, already in force, a repeated demand for an identical sum had been issued as Ext. P3. This was filed on 25.4.2000. Another son of Mohammed Kunhi, Mr. Abdul Rahiman, has filed O.P. No. 13020/2000 on 28.4.2000 challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him. He had contended that he had been employed abroad, was not aware of the business dealings of his father, that the properties in which he was residing with Ms family at Kasaragod though belonged to his father, had been earmarked to him, and that the movable items there all were his personal belongings, and recovery proceedings were therefore uncalled for.

6. He bad also averred that excepting the apparels worn, his father had no movable properties, but bad substantial immovable properties. He had also undertaken not to sell or remove any movable properties from his residence. The above passages read as following:

"petitioner hereby undertakes that he will not sell or remove any of the movables from the house until the disputes and claims are settled finally. Petition