MOHANDAS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek to quash Exts.P4 to P-17 demand notices sent by the fifth respondent for realisation of amounts due to the first respondent. Contention of the petitioners is that the firm in which they are partners was not made a defaulter by the first respondent and no proceedings are initiated against the firm and so their liabilities as partners arise only when the firm becomes liable.

(2.) As Exts.P-4 to P17 were issued by the Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Thrissur for realisation of the amounts due to the State of Tamil Nadu (first respondent), the question that arises for consideration is whether it is open to the petitioners to challenge the same before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by the first respondent. Of course, Exts.P-4 to P-17 were issued for realisation of the amount by the Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Thrissur (fifth respondent). Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as Exts.P4 to P-17 notices were issued by the fifth respondent, the writ petition is perfectly maintainable. Learned Government Pleader who took notice for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the entire cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu and so before this Court petitioners cannot challenge revenue recovery proceedings initiated in Kerala.

(3.) Clause (1A) under Art.226 of the Constitution of India which was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 has been renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Art.226(1) gives power to every High Court to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Clause (2) reads:-