ISSAC AND SONS P LTD Vs. PRATHYODHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two petitioners in this petition. The first petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director. The second petitioner is the Manager of Hotel Residency, Munnar, run by the first petitioner Company. The company was assessed to tax under the Building Tax Act. The first petitioner moved this Court in OP No. 13019 of 1991 to quash the orders assessing the company to building tax and for further reliefs. After hearing counsel for the petitioner company and also the learned Government Pleader, Chettur Sankaran Nair, J. by judgment dated 19th December, 1991, directed the petitioner to make a request to the Government for exemption and seek appropriate reliefs from the Government and to enable the petitioner to do so, the demand under Exts. P3 and P3(a) was directed to be held in abeyance for five weeks from the date of judgment. The period of five weeks will expire on 22/23-1-1992.

(2.) The gravamen of the charge in this proceeding initiated by the petitioners, is that the first respondent (Tahsildar, Devicolam) and the second respondent (Deputy Tahsildar (R.R.), Devicolam), even after knowledge of the order passed by this Court, attached the movables of the company lying in Hotel Residency and insisted the company to furnish security for the release of the attached articles, which in the circumstances, amounted in the commission of offence under S.2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act punishable under S.12 of the said Act.

(3.) This Court issued notices to the respondents. On behalf of the respondents two counter affidavits have been filed. The first counter affidavit was filed on 17-1-1992 and the second counter affidavit was filed on 29-1-1992. It is common ground that the attachment of the movables belonging to the first petitioner company under the Revenue Recovery Act, was made on 26-12-1991. In the affidavit filed on 17-1-1992, by the first respondent, the plea is that the respondent were not aware of the order passed by this Court till 3.45 p.m. on 26-12-1991, when a photostat copy of the judgment in O.P.No.13019 of 1991 along with a covering letter dated 26-12-1991 was received by the Tahsildar (Ist respondent) on 26-12-1991 at 3.45 P.M. It is also stated that there was no communication received from the office of the Advocate General about the order of this Court dated 19-12-1991 till 26-12-1991. The communication from the office of the Advocate General dated 20-12-1991 was received in the office of the Tahsildar on 26-12-1991 at 4.30 P.M. In these circumstances, the first respondent has stated in the affidavit dated 16-1-1992, that the attachment made at about 10 A.M. and completed by 11.40 A.M. on 26-12-1991 was valid and was so done without the knowledge of the order passed by this Court.