N. S. CYRIAC Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kailasapara estate, as the records reveal, created sensation in the media and otherwise. A limited facet of the sensational activities is covered by the Original Petition.

(2.) N. S. Cyriac, the petitioner herein, according to the averments, owns only an acre of land cultivated by cardamom, out of the larger area of the former Kailasapara estate. He has sketched the events, though generally and vaguely, as to how a seizable estate almost dwindled to nothingness. Ramanatha Chettiar and others earlier owned the estate. He and his brothers purchased portions thereof. He had purchased, in 1986, an extent of 25.92 acres. He had gifted the lands, according to him, to his children and as the date of the filing of the writ petition, he is having a nominal one acre plot.

(3.) The complaint voiced in the writ petition relates to the seizure of some records from his house oh 11th December 1986. Long thereafter, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam issued summons to him under R.72 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. The reply is Ext. P-1. He wanted to examine "all the persons who were present for the alleged inspection". Permission was sought "to inspect all agricultural income tax and sales tax assessment records maintained by the Department and to take copies or extracts therefrom". He was prepared to bear the expenses in that regard. It would appear that the Department had taken proceedings against the brothers of the petitioner as well. The petitioner got copy of at least some of them from the brothers. -That is referred to in the communication dated 17th May 1988. An attempt was made to project the petitioner's explanation about the events and facts. The details thereof are not relevant for the purpose of the original petition. There was a demand for return of the accounts and registers seized at the time of the inspection. Various contentions, legal and factual; were raised in support of that request. The writ petition was filed on 4th July 1988. It was admitted on 6th July 1988. Notice was directed to be served by special messenger and the case was posted for hearing on 12th July 1983. As it generally happens in such cases, even by 13th July 1988, the Liaison Officer could not obtain instructions from the respondents. The Government officials, quite often, neglect the interest of the Government under which they serve, even when the gravity of a subject matter is indicated by service of notice by special messenger as ordered by the Court. The system, distressing to the Court and damaging to the Government, continues unchecked. So long as salary is received, no one appears to be affected even if larger Governmental interest suffer, and suffer pathetically. A court, dealing with the pressing plea of a petitioner who had done all that he could, to alert the respondents, has to give consideration for the reliefs he seeks for. It is an uncomfortable feeling for the Court, to virtually grope in the dark in the absence of instructions or information from the respondents. Yet, in the adversary system as it exist today, the callous neglect of a party to the case should not prejudice a consideration of the request of the vigilant party. This Court issued "an interim direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner or his authorised representative to take extracts/copies of the documents and records taken away from the petitioner's premises and remaining with the first respondent." The substantial relief was so obtained by the petitioner. The writ petition was posted for hearing on 1st August 1988.