STATE OF KERALA Vs. UNIVERSAL MARINE AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State of Kerala and the Director of Fisheries, Trivandrum, against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, allowing the respondent's writ petition and restraining the appellants and the Deputy Director, the Assistant Director, the Sub Inspector of Fisheries and the District Collector, Trichur, from taking steps for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,974.94 mentioned in Ext. P5 notice, under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 or the Indian Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The learned Judge's judgment is reported (vide 1977 KLT 949 ). An Ice plant Storage and Freezing plant at Azheekode was leased to the writ petitioner under Ext P1 agreement dated 5-5-1970 for a period of one year. The rent was Rs. 30,001/-. Rs. 15,000/-had been paid on 7-5-1970 and the balance was payable on or before 23-11-1970. It was actually paid on 30-1-1971. Electric charges had to be paid by the lessee. As the charges were not so paid, the electric supply was disconnected on 30-3-1971. On 20-3-1971 by Ext. P2 letter from the 3rd petitioner, (the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner), the Director of Fisheries was informed that the petitioner was unable to continue the lease till the end of the period of agreement, and proposing to hand over the plant at any time before the end of the month. The 3rd petitioner complained of harassment from the local officials. As articles were inside the factory, the 5th respondent (to the OP.), the Sub Inspector of Fisheries put a lock on the factory and listed the articles (vide Ext. P3). On 14-5-1971, the writ petitioner and the respondents came to the ice plant. Rs. 13,194.64 was estimated to be the arrears towards the electric charges and it was agreed that the petitioner would pay the amount. On 28-5-1971 the petitioner actually paid the amount and the electric supply was reconnected. On 4-6-1971 the plant was test run. The plant had to be rectified. But this was not done. The writ petitioner was issued a notice for the security amount of Rs. 5,010/-and an additional claim of Rs. 5,000/-. The mistakes in the plant were rectified. The factory was reauctioned for Rs. 60,000/-. On 9-2-1974, the expresses and the loss caused to the Government by not returning the factory on 7-5-1971, were calculated at Rs. 29,974.94. After adjusting the security amount of Rs. 5,000/- a notice was issued for Rs. 24,974.94. Revenue Recovery Proceedings for the said amount were proposed to be taken. By Ext. P4 reply dated 14th August, 1973, the writ petitioner had stated that the entire lease amount of Rs.30,001/- was paid in full and the plant was surrendered on 31st May, 1971, that subsequently the plant was leased out by the Government to another party, and that the security amount of Rs. 5,000/- had not been returned to the writ petitioner. Ext. P5 notice of demand dated 9-2-1974 under the Revenue Recovery Act was issued by the Tahsildar, Mangalore, threatening revenue recovery proceedings for the amount of Rs. 24,974.94 that was due. It was at that stage that the writ petitioner approached this Court for redress. These were the facts according to the appellants.

(2.) The learned Judge referred to Ext. P1 contract, and in particular to Clause.16 of the said agreement which reads as follows:

(3.) We may extract the clause in Ext. P1 agreement relied upon by the learned Advocate General.