ANANDALAKSHMY Vs. DY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the Collector's proceedings dated 31st October 1975 a Revenue Recovery Certificate with requisition for realisation of an amount of Rs. 2,500 towards customs dues penalty from M/s Intercontinental Fisheries, Cochin, was received by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Cochin. Demand notice under S.7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued to the Village Officer, Rameswaram Village, Cochin for realisation of the amount from the parties concerned. M/s Intercontinental Fisheries is a proprietary concern of Shri V. K. Sreedharan, husband of the petitioner. According to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent in the matter on 2nd December 1975, the village officer went to the house of the defaulter and enquired about him. The petitioner informed him that Shri Sreedharan was at Calcutta. It is alleged that the Demand Notice was shown to her and the details of arrears explained. She is alleged to have requested for time till 10th December 1975 for intimating the fact to the defaulter and to settle the matter. It is further alleged that about a week after, the defaulter's son Sri V. Kishore met the village officer and intimated him that his father is not liable to pay the amount and the matter will be settled on 20th December 1975 when his father returns from Calcutta. The 1st respondent alleges that nothing was done on 20th December 1975, and the village officer met the petitioner again. The petitioner promised to settle the matter within a week. The 2nd respondent is said to have waited for a week more. But it is alleged that the defaulter or the petitioner did not do anything to settle the matter as promised by the petitioner. Therefore, on 29th December 1975 the village officer went to the house of the petitioner and asked the whereabouts of the defaulter and also requested the petitioner to clear the arrears. As she is said to have shown an indifferent attitude stating that as neither she nor her husband is liable to pay the arrears no recovery steps can be taken against him, the second respondent attached the movables found in the house. The attachment was effected by the Village Officer and the Revenue Inspector when the petitioner and a major son of the defaulter were present.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this court contending that the movables belonged to her and there was no service of notice on the defaulter and in the absence of such notice the attachment is illegal and no further proceedings can be taken on that. She has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P1 and P2; Ext. P1 being the demand notice under S.7 of the Act and Ext. P2 the list of movables attached. There is also a prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any recovery proceedings against the petitioner's property for the alleged arrears due from M/s Intercontinental Fisheries. Another prayer has also been made for a direction to return the articles attached to the petitioner.

(3.) What was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the condition precedent for effecting the attachment under S.8 of the Act has not been fulfilled in the case. His contention is that in the absence of non compliance with S.7 of the Act, no attachment could be effected.