High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-03-16Review petition dismissed.

Chitharanjan P. v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:RP.No. 795 of 2013 (V)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Judgment Date: 2016-03-16
Court Decision / Holding: The review petition is dismissed. The court found that the earlier directives were complied with by the Deputy Excise Commissioner’s order dated 21.10.2011, leaving no live ground for review. It also noted the possibility of challenging the 21.10.2011 order on maintainability grounds, but concluded that the review petition itself could not be sustained.
Final Disposition: Review petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chitharanjan P., aged 60 years, S/O Padmanabhan, Kollam

Respondents

The State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government (Excise), Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Recovery Tahsildar, Kollam
The District Collector, Kollam
The Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Sreekanth S. Nair
• Smt. N.G. Sindhu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T.R. Rajesh, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Chitharanjan P., a co-licencee of toddy shop Nos. 1 to 65 of Kollam Excise Range during 1997-1998, faced departmental proceedings that culminated in cancellation of his licence, while criminal proceedings ended in acquittal. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated to realise kist arrears and toddy welfare fund arrears under an Amnesty Scheme introduced by GO (MS) No. 108/2008/TD (26.05.2008) and extended thereafter. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 14219/2009 challenging the Amnesty Scheme and sought relief under the Supreme Court’s decision in VK Asokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (2009) and extension of similar relief to him. The High Court disposed of the first writ petition on 22.07.2011, directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P12 representation after a hearing and to decide within two months, with recovery kept in abeyance upon the petitioner remitting Rs. 10,00,000 in two installments. The petitioner subsequently filed W.P.(C) No. 1188/2012 seeking similar relief, and the Government’s actions surrounding orders dated 21.10.2011 were examined. In the present RP, the Court observed the chronology: Asokan (2009) precedes the court’s 2011 order, the petitioner failed to establish a live ground for review, and the review petition was dismissed. The Court did, however, reiterate that challenge to the 21.10.2011 order could be pursued on maintainability grounds.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The scope of the review is extremely limited.
Subsequent events may not provide ground for reviewing a judgment; they may provide an independent cause of action.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in V.K. Asokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (2009) should extend to him under the Amnesty Scheme, and that the directives issued by the court and the subsequent orders under the Amnesty Scheme should be interpreted to grant relief. He contends that the sequence of writ petitions and judgments, including W.P.(C) Nos. 14219/2009 and 1188/2012, support extending relief analogous to Asokan. He maintains that the revenue recovery and toddy welfare arrears were to be resolved in accordance with the scheme and due process, and that non-transfer of relief would cause prejudice while his financial commitment (remittances) reflects substantial compliance. He asserts that the 21.10.2011 directive was not properly communicated, and seeks renewal of relief under the Amnesty Scheme.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader submits that the Amnesty Scheme and the subsequent directives were already effectuated by the Deputy Excise Commissioner’s order dated 21.10.2011, which complied with the court’s directions; the review jurisdiction is limited and no live ground exists to revisit the 22.07.2011 order. It is argued that any grievance arising from the 21.10.2011 order could be challenged separately on maintainability grounds, and that the petitioner had opportunity to advance Asokan-based relief earlier but did not do so in the first petition.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
V.K. Asokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner	2009(14) SCC 85	Mentioned Only	The court cites Asokan to discuss chronology and potential relief, but does not apply it as binding precedent to grant relief in the review petition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Chitharanjan P. v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/26TH PHALGUNA, 1937 RP.No. 795 of 2013 (V) IN WP(C).14219/2009 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14219/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-07-2011 REVIEW PETITIONER: ------------------------ CHITHARANJAN P., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KARTHIYANI MANDIRAM, PEZHUMTHURUTH MURI, MANDROTHURUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR SMT.N.G.SINDHU RESPONDENTS: ------------------ ## 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (EXCISE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. ## 2. THE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, - (R.R) KOLLAM 691 001. ## 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - KOLLAM 691 001. ## 4. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, - KOLLAM 691 001. R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI. T.R. RAJESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 795 of 2013 (V) : 2 : ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1188/2012. - ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO. 22661 OF 2013. - ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.Q6.3848/01 DATED 24.03.2011 ISSUED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.084159/2013 DATED 07.10.2013 ISSUED BY R.R TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.918/2013/1144 DATED 30.03.2013 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA TODDY WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A6 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2011 IN W.P(C) NO. 30183 OF 2010. - ANNEXURE A7 : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 181/13/TD DATED 25.10.2013. - ANNEXURE A8 : TRUE COPY OF APPLICATIONS DATED 06.12.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.1997 OF ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A10 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.XA1-19604/97 DATED 13.05.1998 OF BOARD OF REVENUE EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - ANNEXURE A11 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.Q/E4/K-1-65/9798/CER/324/07 DATED 03.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A11(a) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A11. ANNEXURE A12 : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1. ANNEXURE A13 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2007 IN S.C. NO. 1776/02 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A14 : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.108/08/TD DATED 26.05.2008. - ANNEXURE A15 : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A3. ANNEXURE A16 : TRUE COPY OF LEGAL OPINION DATED 10.02.2011 OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL. RP.No. 795 of 2013 (V) ## : 3 : ## PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE A17 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 01.12.2012 ISSUED BY R.R. TAHSILDAR. - ANNEXURE A18 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.01.2013 ISSUED BY R.R. TAHSILDAR. - ANNEXURE A18(a) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A18. ANNEXURE A19 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO. 22661 OF 2013. - ANNEXURE A20 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 31815 OF 2013. - ANNEXURE A21 : TRUE COPY OF FORM 18A DATED 12.09.2013. ANNEXURE A22 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D6/16/99 DATED 31.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR RR, KOLLAM. - ANNEXURE A22(a) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A22. ANNEXURE A23 : TRUE COPY OF REASSESSMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.1736/2013/LBR DATED 09.10.2013. - ANNEXURE A24 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF HEARING ON REASSESSMENT. - ANNEXURE A24(a) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A24. ANNEXURE A25 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT FOR HEARING DATED 10.08.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. - ANNEXURE A25(a) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A25. ANNEXURE A26 : TRUE COPY OF G.O(K) NO.64/2015/TD DATED 21.04.2015. - ANNEXURE A26(a) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A26. ## RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rv DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ---------------------------------- **==> picture [180 x 45] intentionally omitted <==** ---------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2016. ## ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. 2. The petitioner, being a co-licencee of toddy shop Nos. 1 to 65 of Kollam Excise Range during the period 1997-1998, faced criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings on the allegation that the licencees were selling adulterated toddy. The departmental proceedings resulted in the cancellation of the licence; however, the criminal proceedings ended in acquittal. Under these circumstances, the Government took recourse to revenue recovery proceedings to realise the kist arrears and toddy welfare fund arrears. In the course of time, it introduced, however, an Amnesty Scheme through G.O. (MS) No. 108/2008/TD dated 26.05.2008, which was extended further. 3. Taking advantage of the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 14219 of 2009 and invited a judgment dated R.P. No. 795/2013 -2- 22.07.2011. At the time of making an application under the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner is said to have deposited three instalments. This Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: “Under these circumstances, a direction is issued to the 4[th] respondent to consider and dispose of the matter pending before him in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 4[th] respondent.” 4. Later, the petitioner filed another writ petition: W.P.(C) No. 1188 of 2012. In this writ petition, the petitioner took a plea that under identical circumstances, certain other persons approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and obtained a relief in Civil Appeal Nos. 1541 to 1547 of 2009 dated 05.03.2009. According to the petitioner, the — benefit of the said judgment V.K. Asokan v. Assistant Excise — Commissioner[1] -should be extended to the petitioner as well. 5. This Court, through its judgment dated 31.01.2012, issued the following direction: “4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3[rd] respondent to consider Ext.P12 representation submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision thereof, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 1 2009(14)SCC 85 R.P. No. 795/2013 -3- 5. Till such time, the 3[rd] respondent takes a decision on Ext.P12 as directed above, further steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P15 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in two instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each on or before 29.02.2012 and on or before 31.03.2012. Needless to say that recovery of the balance amount will be subject to the result of the decision, which will be taken by the 3[rd] respondent.” 6. If we examine the chronology of judicial pronouncements, it reveals an interesting pattern. The Hon'ble Supeme Court rendered the judgment in V.K. Asokan on 05.03.2009; this Court rendered its judgment in W.P.(C) No. 14219 of 2009 on 22.07.2011 i.e., much subsequent to the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner could have raised the plea of the binding nature of Asokan in the first writ petition itself; but, instead, he only sought the advantage of the Amnesty scheme. Be that as it may, in W.P.(C) No. 1188 of 2012, the petitioner did take the said plea. This Court disposed of the second writ petition on 31.01.2012. 7. Another chronological oddity is this: in response to the judgment dated 22.07.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 14219 of 2009, the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kollam, passed an order dated 21.10.2011, i.e., prior to the judgment dated 31.01.2012 rendered by this Court in R.P. No. 795/2013 -4- W.P.(C) No. 1188 of 2012. Neither the petitioner nor the Government brought to the notice of the Court the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kollam. 8. As has been rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, in the face of the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kollam, whatever direction given earlier by this Court stood complied with by the Government. In other words, the judgment has come to be executed and thus the directive fulfilled. In that context, there is nothing to be reviewed. It is trite to observe that the scope of the review is extremely limited and the subsequent events may not provide the necessary ground for — reviewing the judgment they may provide an independent cause of action. 9. Nevertheless, this Court hastens to add that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kollam, which certainly provides a fresh cause of action, he may assail it. Given the efflux of time in the interim, it is for the petitioner to establish, if at all he assails the said order, that his cause does not suffer from the vice of latches. For the R.P. No. 795/2013 -5- learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order in question was not communicated to him. 10. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the review petition cannot be sustained and it is accordingly dismissed. This Court, however, leaves it open for the petitioner to challenge, if he choses to, the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kollam, subject to its maintainability and other legal parameters. sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. rv R.P. No. 795/2013 -6-