CHITHARANJAN.P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which the prayer to extend the benefits of an earlier judgment was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has been time and again before this Court challenging the liability incurred by himself and five others who were licensees of toddy shops 1 to 65 of Kollam Excise Range, in the year 1997 -98.

(2.) THE licences referred to above were cancelled for reason of adulteration detected and the toddy shops were reauctioned. The criminal case registered against the appellant and others ended in acquittal and on that basis, the appellant challenged the recovery proceedings initiated for realization of the balance 'kist' amount as well as the contributions due to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund from himself and others. The appellant claimed benefit of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.14219 of 2009. This Court disposed of the above writ petition noticing that the appellant had already approached the Assistant Excise Commissioner seeking reliefs under the 'Amnesty Scheme' formulated by the State Government and has already paid certain instalments due under the Scheme. Since it was the contention of the appellant in that proceeding that the application for amnesty was pending consideration, this Court directed consideration of the same within a period of two months. But, despite amnesty application being allowed and the appellant paying the amounts stipulated as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd instalments, the last instalment was defaulted and issue was continuously agitated before various forums.

(3.) TH instalment as per the Amnesty Scheme remained unpaid, recovery proceedings were proceeded with, which also was assailed in the said writ petition. Hence, the learned Single Judge directed keeping in abeyance of recovery proceedings on the appellant making payment of Rs.10,00,000/ - in two instalments on or before 29.02.2012 and on or before 31.03.2012. The appellant, however, did not comply with the directions and was again before this Court in the instant writ petition, challenging the order passed pursuant to Exhibit P1 judgment, produced as Exhibit P5 herein. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant cannot in a separate proceeding seek for extension of the time already extended. 4. The appellant before the learned Single Judge had a contention that the amounts were not paid as directed by the learned Single Judge due to the refusal of the Government to issue challan for making such deposit. Even before us the very same argument was addressed and to evidence the same, the learned counsel points to Annexure A1 application for extension of time filed by the Government. The learned Single Judge, rightly, found that the judgment in W.P.(C).No.1188 of 2012 issued a direction to the authorities to consider the appellant's application and also directed payment of two instalments, the latter direction as a condition to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings and the said two directions cannot be mixed up. Evidently the application for extension of time (Annexure A1) made by the Government is only for extending the time stipulated for consideration of the representation of the appellant. The appellant had been shifting his stance continuously and also refusing to comply with the conditions imposed by the Court. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the benefit extended to him in an earlier proceeding cannot be sought to be further extended in a separate proceeding.