K T THOMAS Vs. TAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein who claims to be the owner and holder of a revolver, two rifles and a gun, which were attached under S.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, hereinafter called the Act, seeks to quash the demand notice, Ext. P2, by which the above mentioned articles were attached. There is also a prayer for a declaration that S.7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, he had sent the weapons mentioned above along with the licences through one K. Chandrasekharan for production before the Tahsildar, Kozhikode, the first respondent herein, and these weapons along with the licences were produced before the first respondent for verification on 7-4-1981 by Chandrasekharan. On the same day, the Special Revenue Inspector, the second respondent herein, attached the weapons and the licences. After attachment, the second respondent served a notice Ext. P2 on Chandrasekharan. It is alleged in the said notice that a sum of Rs. 8792.77 is due from the petitioner by way of E.P.F. arrears, Emergency Risk Insurance, Subsistence Allowance, etc., for the period from April, 1973 to December 1974. The petitioner contends that there is no such amount due from him and the attachment is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 wherein they have stated that the attachment of the weapons mentioned was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that their action was quite legal. It is said that an amount of Rs. 14102.77 was due from the petitioner by way of E.P.F. arrears; that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 5310/- and a balance amount of "Rs. 8792.77" is now due from the petitioner.

(3.) Assailing Ext. P2 notice, although the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that S.7 of the Act is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, he did not -- and rightly too -- pursue that contention. This point is covered by a ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Govindankutty Menon v. Tahsildar ( 1972 KLT 1010 . But the main point urged by the counsel was that the attachment is illegal and void in as much as the mandatory provisions in S.7 have been violated. S.7 reads: