KERALA FLOUR MILLS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in this petition is whether money alleged to be due from the petitioner to the State under an unwritten contract is recoverable by recourse to the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The amount which is over Rs. 65,000/-is claimed by the State from the petitioner as per Ext. P1 order dated 7 10 1969, which says that a sum of Rs. 2/-is payable per quintal of maida and sooji towards supervision charges. This order had been challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No. 3231 of 1972, but unsuccessfully. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed. This Court stated in the appeal that "These matters will have to be investigated and decided upon in other appropriate proceedings. We leave such questions therefore entirely open," Subsequently, "the Government" by Ext. P4 requested the petitioner to remit the supervision charges within two days and produce the receipted chalan therefor. Apprehending revenue' recovery proceedings, the petitioner has once again approached this Court for a direction to restrain the Government from initiating, revenue recovery proceedings. Proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, as stated by the Government in the counter affidavit, appear to have been already initiated, but the petitioner, it is stated, has not received any notice of such proceedings so far.

(2.) It was admitted by the State in the earlier proceedings in this Court as well as in the counter affidavit filed in answer to the present petition that no amounts are due from the petitioner either under any law or under any. written contract. The amounts are alleged to be due by virtue of certain contractual obligations informally entered into between the petitioner and the Government. Admittedly there is no written contract between the petitioner and the Government. The question therefore is whether money alleged to be payable by the petitioner under an oral contract is recoverable by recourse to the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. No question is urged before me as to whether the amount is recoverable by any other procedure, and I do not therefore express any view on that question.

(3.) The relevant provision in the Revenue Recovery Act is S.68, which reads: