STATE OF KERALA Vs. ANIL BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No.15123 of 2014. Respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. Parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the writ petition for convenience.

(2.) Petitioner was the licensee of a few toddy shops under the Cherthala Excise Range during 1996-1997. Proceedings have been initiated by the respondents against the petitioner for realisation of interest on delayed payment of fee for inter-district transport of toddy. The petitioner challenged the proceedings in W.P. (C) No.14973 of 2005 mainly on the ground that the issue relating to the liability of the petitioner to pay interest on delayed payment of fee for inter-district transport of toddy, is covered in his favour by the decision of this Court in W.A.No.1027 of 2005. The stand of the respondents in the said writ petition was that S.L.P.No.4212 of 2007 preferred before the Apex Court by the State against the judgment in W.A.No.1027 of 2005 was pending and therefore, the issue is not concluded. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 23.07.2008, subject to the condition that the respondents will be entitled to recover the disputed interest, if the claim is upheld by the Apex Court in the pending appeal. It was also directed by this Court that the respondents should not issue any fresh notice to the petitioner for the disputed interest or if any notice for the disputed interest is already issued, to withdraw the same and proceed for recovery only if the Apex Court upholds the levy.

(3.) W.P.(C) No.15123 of 2014 from which this appeal arises was instituted by the petitioner alleging that although S.L.P.No.4212 of 2007 arose from W.A.No.1027 of 2005 was dismissed as withdrawn later, proceedings have been initiated for realisation of the disputed interest covered by Ext.P6 judgment. The prayer in the writ petition, in the circumstances, was for quashing the notices issued by the respondents to the petitioner in this regard. The stand of the respondents in the writ petition was that the levy of the disputed interest was interfered with by this Court in a batch of writ appeals including W.A.No.1027 of 2005 and that though S.L.P.No.4212 of 2007 referred to in Ext.P6 judgment was dismissed as withdrawn later, the levy was upheld by the Apex Court in the appeals preferred against the remaining writ appeals and insofar as the levy was upheld, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the disputed interest is in order.