ISSAC PETER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases relate to payment of kist and interest for the abkari years 1980-81 and 1981-82, and for subsequent periods by various licensees of arrack shops. State is yet to realise the entire amount of kist and interest even after a lapse of several years due to various litigations before courts.

(2.) Petitioners in these cases are now aggrieved by the demand of interest on the kist amount which the State could not realise due to litigations. Arguments were raised mainly on facts in O.P.No. 14467 of 1994. A few facts are necessary for proper disposal of these cases. Petitioner in O.P.No. 14467 of 1994 bid some of the shops in Sultan Battery and Kalpetta ranges in public auction for the year 1980-81 for an amount of Rs.70,01,000/- and Rs.50,76,000/- respectively and also a few shops in the same ranges for the year 1981-82 for Rs.50,43,000/- and Rs.51,11,000/- respectively. Agreements were executed by the petitioner with the excise department accepting various terms and conditions enumerated therein, in accordance with the Kerala Abkari Act and Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules. Agreement authorises the State to receive the entire amount under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act as if it is revenue due on land.

(3.) Petitioner and certain others later approached this court and filed OP.Nos. 2325 and 2326 of 1981 and 2043 of 2044 of 1983, etc., demanding additional quantity of arrack from the State and also sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the excise department from collecting kist other than in proportion to the arrack actually supplied to the petitioners and also restraining them from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioners. Some of the petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions approached the civil courts for identical reliefs. Writ Petitions filed before this court were allowed by a Division Bench of this court in Issac Peter v. Asst. Excise Commissioner, 1984 KLT 88 holding that the State was under a statutory obligation to permit issue of such quantity of arrack in excess of monthly quota as was demanded by the petitioners, and that the State having failed to fulfil the obligation, was estopped from demanding full bid amount, and State was not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount due without proper adjudication and quantification. This court therefore quashed all revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Based on the decision of the Division Bench of this court, some of the suits were decreed by the civil courts, and appeals preferred by the State also ended in dismissal.