M.K. SHANMUGHAM Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to call for the records on the file of 1st Respondent in his proceedings RCT 5/83116/82 dated 23 -10 -1982 and the consequent notice of May 1997, and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, Petitioner has alleged that he had participated in the auction for arrack shop No. 1, Alasandapuram Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, North Arcot - Ambedkar District for the excise lease year 1981 -82 and he was declared as the highest bidder at Rs. 7,000/ - on 2 -6 -1981. The Excise Officer (Prohibition) received Rs. 1,000/ - towards earnest money deposit and a further sum of Rs. 3,500/ - on 2 -6 -1981 drawn on the State Bank of India, Vaniyambadi Branch and a further sum of Rs. 17,500/ - was also received towards 2 -1/2 months bid on 9 -6 -1981. In all, Respondent received a sum of Rs. 22,000/ - .

(3.) It is the case of the Petitioner that in and around the shop, there was illicit distillery and, therefore, selling of arrack by unlicensed villagers was common and so the Petitioner could not continue the business. Therefore, on 1 - 8 -1981, even before the first consignment of arrack was sent to the Petitioner, he surrendered the licence and did not avail even a drop of arrack thereafter. On 19 -12 -1981, as per the order of the District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Petitioner was informed that he will be made responsible for the loss sustained by the Government for having made it to conduct resale, and he was informed that he is bound to pay a sum of Rs. 31,183/ -, after adjusting the amount paid by him. The Petitioner sent a reply and also issued a lawyer's notice on 12 -8 -1982 repudiating the contentions of the Respondent, and by the lawyer's notice, he demanded refund of the earnest money, etc., which he paid to the State which, according to him, was one without consideration. On 23 -10 -1982, Petitioner was informed by the Tahsildar that a sum of Rs. 29,200/ - was due from him as loss to the Government. That was pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector of the same date wherein the amount due to the Government was assessed after adjusting the amount paid and also after giving due credit to the amount due to the re -auction. Petitioner was again informed on 3 -12 -1985 that he is bound to pay the loss of the Government. There also, Petitioner was informed about the earlier references. A subsequent notice was also issued on 21 -1 -1986, again informing the Petitioner about the amount due from him. On 21 -6 -1989, the Petitioner informed the Collector that he was not informed as to how the loss was ascertained. The claim of the Government was repudiated. On 18 -8 -1989, Petitioner informed that he was not liable for the so -called loss, and the Petitioner did not hear anything for a long time thereafter and finally in May 1997, Petitioner received a demand for a sum of Rs. 34,270/ - and he was also informed that the Government is going to proceed with the same under Revenue Recovery Act. In the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition, it is averred that he made many representations to the Authorities to look into the records before initiating any proceedings, but they were adamant in their attitude. According to him, the demand is vague, and the notice does not contain all the requirements contemplated under the law, and the property cannot be brought to sale under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is also said that after the resale in favour of Rajan, there was also another reduction in favour of one Krishnamurthy, and he is also liable for the loss and, therefore, making the Petitioner alone liable for the so -called loss to the Government is arbitrary and cannot be supported. The Petitioner, therefore, prays for quashing the entire proceedings as one without jurisdiction.