STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. V SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts leading to the above case are as follows: THE State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Collector, Thanjavur and Tahsildar (Excise), Sirkali are the appellants in the above second appeal. THE respondent- plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No.744 of 1973 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali for declaration that the defendants viz., State of Tamil Nadu and Tahsildar (Excise), Sirkali are not entitled to collect a sum of Rs.23,220 or any other sum as damages and for consequential relief to restrain the defendants from resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

(2.) THE plaint averments are as follows: THE retail toddy shops in Sirkali Taluk were put up for auction by the second defendant under Notification 5.6.1972 for the purpose of vending toddy in shops for the year 1972-73. THE toddy shop No.9 was in the village of Melavalla Natham in Sirkali taluk and was put up for sale on 17.7.1972 in the Taluk Office, Sirkali by the second defendant at the instance of first defendant. THE plaintiff was the highest bidder in the auction held on 17.7.1972 and he paid an initial deposit of Rs.200 and made a further deposit of Rs.3,510. It is further contended that the plaintiff is an illiterate and he was not intimated the alleged acceptance of his bid nor was he informed that the same had been confirmed. THEre was no confirmation of his bid, the plaintiff withdrew the same even on 17.7.1972 and intimated the said officer. He further contended that no order confirming the provisional bid was either passed by the first defendant nor communicated to the plaintiff. THE plaintiff was informed by a notice dated 2.10.1972 that there was a re-auction of the abovesaid toddy shop and that by such re-auction the Government suffered damages in a sum of Rs.23,220. It is stated that the plaintiff was liable for the said sum and the amounts paid by the plaintiff would stand forfeited to the Government. THE plaintiff received a notice from the Special Tahsildar (Excise) dated 2.10.1972 that the plaintiff is liable for a sum of Rs.23,220 THEreupon the plaintiff sent a notice on 10.11.1972 under Sec.80, C.P.C. THEreupon the second defendant served a notice on the plaintiff under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is further alleged that even if the first defendant has the right to apply the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, an opportunity should have been granted to the plaintiff to state his objections and further it ought to have held an enquiry before applying the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. With these averments the plaintiff prayed for a decree for declaration and consequential injunction.

(3.) THE second defendant, the Tahsildar (Excise) Sirkali filed a written statement in the following manner: THE second defendant is an unnecessary party and in other aspects, he adopted the defence taken by the first defendant.