K R VINOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's father late Sri.K.R.Vasudevan was the licensee of Toddy Shop Nos.1 to 48 of Mala Excise Range for the period from 1997 to 2000. From the counter affidavit it appears that on account of the defaults committed, licence was cancelled with effect from 1.6.1998. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act including a proceedings under Section 65 of the said Act. Although amounts were recovered, still the entire liability was not discharged. According to the respondents, as at present, Rs.2,75,66,479/- + interest is due. Therefore, they issued Ext.P10, notice under Section 49 of the Act. It was there upon the petitioner approached this Court.

(2.) CONTENTION raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the liability of the defaulter is liable to be reassessed in the light of Ext.P1 judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1541/09 and connected cases. It is argued that if the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment is given, the liability of the licensee is confined to only one year and if so, there will not be any further liability to pay any amount and that the petitioner cannot be proceeded against pursuant to Ext.P10 notice under the R.R Act.

(3.) I am unable to agree with the respondents. The Apex Court has decided in principle that the liability of the licensee involved in Ext.P1, is confined to one year. Respondents also have no case that the case of late Sri.K.R.Vasudevan is different in any manner. Therefore, once the Apex Court has laid down a principle, which under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is the law of the land, every citizen is entitled to the benefit of that principle. Therefore, irrespective of whether the licensee or the petitioner has filed or not filed appeal against the judgment dismissing their writ petition, they cannot be denied the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment. In that view of the matter I am unable to permit the respondents to proceed with Ext.P10 and on the other hand, respondents should reassess the liability of the deceased licensee applying the principles laid down in Ext.P1.