AJITH A. Vs. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KASARAGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were members of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent Society during 2000-2001, during which period the Society bid in Abkari auction and was allotted toddy shops in Kasaragod, Kumbala and Badiadke Ranges of Kasaragod Division. The security amounts for the toddy shops in the three ranges was fixed at Rs.5,56,700/-, Rs.9,85,000/- and Rs.17,10,600 respectively. Of this only an amount at Rs.5,45,000/- could be remitted by the 4th respondent Society. Consequently, the licence for conduct of toddy shops issued in favour of the 4th respondent Society was cancelled on 30.05.2001. For the unremitted portion of the security amount and the kist amount due, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and Ext.P1 notice was issued to the then President of the Society for realisation of the arrear amount by proceeding against his personal properties. The President challenged the Revenue Recovery proceedings before this Court and by Ext.P3 judgment the authorities were directed to look into the explanation offered by the petitioner therein, with reference to the decision in Suseelan v. State of Kerala [2002(1) KLT 226], and to pass reasoned order. But contrary to the direction, Revenue Recovery proceedings was again initiated against the President, who thereupon filed W.P(C) No.7797 of 2009 challenging the proceedings. By Ext.P4 judgment this Court found the Revenue Recovery steps initiated against the personal properties of the President to be unsustainable and quashed the notices under challenge. It was made clear that the respondents will be free to proceed against the 4 th respondent Society for realisation of the arrears by resorting to methods available under law or against the sureties if any, who had stood as guarantors for payment of amounts due under the agreement.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, wherein it was specifically directed that proceedings can be initiated against the 4th respondent Society, as per Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings is initiated against the petitioners in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent Society. With reference to Ext.P5, the agreement entered into by the Society at the time of allotment of the toddy shops, it is submitted that none of the petitioners are parties to the agreement either in their capacity as licensees or as guarantors. It is contended that the issue with respect to the personal liability of the members of the Board of Directors stands concluded with Ext.P4 judgment, though the judgment was rendered on the basis of the challenge raised by the President of the Society. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision in Suseelan v. State of Kerala [2002(1)KLT 226], in support of the proposition that the members of the managing committee cannot be mulcted with personal liability for the dues of the Society.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader would submit that admittedly amounts are due to the Government and that the rights of the Government for realisation of the amount may not be foreclosed by the decision in the instant writ petition.