P A MATHIAZHAGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a WRIT of Certiorari as stated therein.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the notice of the second respondent in Na.Ka.H2.13778/81, dated 30.3.2004, and to quash the same.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner was a successful bidder for Arrack shop Nos.26,27,28,33 and 34 in Gudiyatham Taluk. He had deposited = month's kist amount. Later, he was asked to deposit 2 = month's kist in respect of the shops alloted to him, within a period of seven days. Since the amount had not been deposited, the said shops had been re-auctioned, on 31.7.1981 and an intimation had been given to the petitioner, on 29.7.1981. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed orders stating that there was a notional loss which the petitioner was liable to pay. Since the order had been passed, without an opportunity being given to the petitioner, he had filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos. 3150 to 3154 of 1982, challenging the orders of the District Collector, North Arcot District, as well as the Rules applicable to the matter. By an order, dated 1.11.1988, this Court had set aside the order, without going into the merits of the case and had directed the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The said order had become final.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that the impugned notice, dated 30.3.2004, had been issued only in conformity with the orders issued by this Court, in order to offset the notional loss suffered by the Government due to the re-auctioning of the arrack shops in question. The notice had been issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the notional loss suffered by the Government should not be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. After having received the said notice, he had filed writ petitions before this Court, in W.P.Nos.3150 to 3154 of 1982. This Court had directed the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, a fresh show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner, on 29.10.1991. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner had again moved this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.1320 of 1992, in order to stall the proceedings of the respondents to recover the notional loss caused to the Government . It has been further stated that the petitioner had deliberately refused to receive the show cause notice and therefore, the respondent had approached this Court requesting for extension of time to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner. After this Court had passed an order extending time to issue a show cause notice, the respondents had issued a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, on 10.8.2001. However, he had failed to send his objections within the time prescribed in the said notice. Thereafter, he had filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1551 of 2001, wherein he was granted one month's time for filing his objections and the Division Bench had passed the order, on 6.9.2001. After his objections had been considered, the petitioner was called upon to remit a sum of Rs.14,33,523/-, vide notice, dated 30.3.2004. Since, the show cause notice issued by the second respondent, dated 30.3.2004, is in accordance with law, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.