Point of Law: Recovering the arrears of bus stand fee dues from the contractor - Proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner as per demand and the requisition made thereto is after a period of 3 years as is provided under section 539 of the Act, 1994.

JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

Captioned appeal is preferred by the Corporation of Kozhikode and its Secretary – respondents 2 & 3 in W.P.(C) No.19156 of 2011, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.11.2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal was allowed and Exhibits P3 demand notice dated 26.6.2009, Exhibit P4 Memo dated 25.5.2009 and Exhibit P9 demand notice under section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 demanding an amount of Rs.2,71,416/- along with interest and other charges were quashed. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

2. The writ petitioner retired from the service of the Corporation of Kozhikode – the 1st appellant on 30.6.1999. After 10 years of retirement, she was served with Exhibit P3 notice by the Secretary of the Corporation of Kozhikode – the 2nd appellant, directing her and two others to pay Rs.69,936/- and Rs.25,646/- each with interest within 7 days. According to the writ petitioner, on enquiry she came to know that the appellants had earlier issued Exhibit P4 memo directing herself and four others to pay Rs.1,72,521/- on the basis of the recommendation made from the Local Fund Audit Accounting, allegedly for non-collection of arrears of bus stand licence fee. Apparently the allegation is that, the writ petitioner and others omitted to take timely action to proceed with the appeal filed against the dismissal of S.T.No.750/1999, which was filed for recovering the arrears of bus stand fee dues from the contractor.

3. According to the writ petitioner, the Corporation proceeded against the Contractor engaged for collecting the bus stand fee by filing a complaint before the competent Magistrate Court but the case was dismissed on account of default on the part of the Advocate. It is further submitted that though the appeal was entrusted with a Counsel in the High Court, no timely action was taken. It is the further contention of the writ petitioner that she has nothing to do with the collection of arrears and she had retired from service before the order was passed in the case before the Magistrate Court and she is no way liable to pay the loss, if any, sustained to the Corporation.

4. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that she has submitted Exhibits P5 & P7 representations, consequent to Exhibit P3 demand notice issued by the Corporation, which was accepted, evident from Exhibits P6 & P8 receipts, however, without taking into consideration any of the aspects raised by the petitioner, recovery action was initiated by issuing Exhibit P9 demand before attachment of property under section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 on 2.7.2010. It was in the aforesaid constrained circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

5. The learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, allowed the writ petition basically holding that similarly situated persons like the petitioner, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2010 and proceedings were quashed as per Exhibit R2(a) judgement dated 22nd March, 2012. In Exhibit R2(a) judgement, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the revenue recovery action was initiated by the Corporation, after a unilateral adjudication and hence, the procedure adopted cannot be sustained under law in view of the dispute raised by the petitioners therein against the demand. It was accordingly that the coercive action initiated against the petitioner was quashed. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgement of the learned single Judge, the appeal is filed.

6. We have heard learned counsel Sri. G. Santhosh Kumar for the appellants, learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Vinitha B., learned counsel Sri. K. Jamaludheen for the writ petitioner/1st respondent and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

7. Apparently from the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ petition it is clear that the subject iss