The main legal point established is that under the Revenue Recovery Act, the District Collector must conduct an independent enquiry and ensure fair and reasonable decision-making process before issuing orders for arrest and detention.

The petitioner is a 'defaulter' coming within the purview of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short the 'Act'). The allegation against the petitioner is that he had defaulted in payment of the arrears of sales tax for the years 1979-80 to 1987-88. A demand notice under S.7 of the Act was served on the petitioner but he admittedly had not complied with the notice. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued a notice under S.65 6f the Revenue Recovery Act proposing to arrest and detain him in civil prison. The case is that the petitioner is wilfully withholding the payment of arrears of sale tax. After the enquiry, the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P1 order directing to arrest and detain the petitioner in civil prison. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been arrested and detained in civil prison on 17-5 -1955. Ext. P1 order passed by the District Collector is under challenge.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for respondents.

3. Under S.65 of the Act, when arrears of public revenue due on land, are not paid after the service of the written demand under S.34 and the District Collector is satisfied that the defaulter is wilfully withholding payment of the arrears, or that the defaulter has the means to pay the arrears or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects to pay the same, he may issue a warrant for the arrest of the defaulter. The issue of a demand notice under S.34 and the satisfaction of the District Collector are the two indispensable prerequisites for issuing a warrant for arrest under the said provision. The plea advanced by the petitioner in this case is that he has no means to pay the amount and therefore the non-payment is not wilfull. When such a contention is raised it is imperative that the District Collector shall conduct an enquiry and satisfy himself as to whether the petitioner is withholding or neglecting the payment wilfully or dishonestly. However, the impugned order inter-alia provides thus: "Before coming into a conclusion the Tahsildar, Kochi was contacted to ascertain the financial position of the defaulter and he has reported that though there was not any property in the defaulter's name was still in the Held of spices business at Mattancherry and mat steps under S.65 could be invoked against the defaulter to get the amount realised. It is thus crystal clear that the impugned order has been passed on the advice of the Tahsildar, Kochi. That would mean, the District Collector has not conducted any independent enquiry on the plea of "no means' as contemplated under S.65 of the Act. What is contained in S.65 is a drastic mode of recovery of arrears of public revenue. When powers under S.65 are invoked, it is essential that all the statutory requirements should be complied with "stricto sensu'. The entire decision-making process shall also be fair and reasonable in all respects. In as much as I am satisfied that the District Collector has not conducted any independent enquiry in the present case as contemplated under S.65 of the Act, I am inclined to set aside

Ext. P1 order and I do so.

"4. However, I make it clear that the respondents are free to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. This judgment shall not be interpreted to mean that the respondents are precluded from taking fresh proceedings against the petitioner if there are sufficient materials justifying the action under S.65. In as much as I set aside Ext. P1 order, I direct the 4th respondent to release the petitioner from the Central Prison, Viyyur forthwith.

The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs.