State of Kerala and Others v. Suresh Richard

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **OP(KAT) NO. 296 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 IN OA 2129/2019 OF KERALA** **ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, KERALA.** - **2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, HEAD QUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, KERALA.** **3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A & E), KERALA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **SURESH RICHARD, AGED 57 YEARS S/O N.RICHARD, RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, RESIDING AT RIJO NIVAS, MEENAM NAGAR-46, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 003, KERALA.** **BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BRIJESH MOHAN** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 2 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.** **========================================= O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021** [ _arising out of order dated 21.04.2021 in O.A No.2129/2019 on the file of the KAT, Tvm. Bench_ ] **=========================================** Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas, J.** The sole respondent herein has filed the instant Ext.P-1 Original Application, O.A No.2129/2019 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench on 25.10.2019 with the following prayers [see page No.35 of the paper book of the O.P] : - _“A. To call for records connecting to Annexure A20 and to quash the same, as the act of withholding the DCRG on the basis of “presumptive loss” is unsustainable in the eye of law and against the directions contained in Annexure A15 and A18 Government Orders and the various provisions in Annexures A16, A21 and A22._ - _B. To grant an order of declaration that the Applicant is eligible and entitled for disbursement of DCRG, as no actual pecuniary loss has been caused to the government and the present liability alleged is only presumptive loss which cannot be made basis of recovery from DCRG of the Applicant._ - _C. To direct the respondents concerned to disburse the DCRG of the Applicant in a time bound manner._ - _D. To grant 18% interest on the DCRG amount from 30-04-2018 onwards to the date of its actual disbursement._ - _E. To award cost of the proceedings to be realised from the authorities concerned who were duty bound to release DCRG on time to the applicant._ O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 3 _&_ - _F. Such other reliefs this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”_ 2. The applicant in this O.P had retired from service on 30.04.2018. The dispute in the present case is in relation to the delayed payment of DCRG and the legality or otherwise of the liabilities fixed against the applicant and deducted from the DCRG. The full amount of DCRG sanctioned in favour of the original applicant is stated to be Rs.13,76,000/-. 3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P-6 final order in the above O.A on 21.04.2021 with the following findings and directions therein, as can be seen from the last paragraph thereof (para 15), given on internal page 13 of Ext.P-6 [see page 227 of the paper book of the O.P] and the same reads as follows : _“15. In view of the above findings, the Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:_ _(a) The fixation of liability of Rs.9,52,100/- on the applicant on the basis of a presumptive loss is not in accordance with law, and the same is set aside._ _(b) The liability of Rs.87,750/- fixed on the applicant by Annexure-A26 order is set aside . The amount, withheld from the DCRG will be released to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant will be paid interest on the amount of the DCRG at the rate of 7% from 01.01.2019 till the date of payment, within three months of receipt of a copy of this order.”_ 4. Aggrieved by the abovesaid directions and orders passed by O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 4 the Tribunal at Ext.P-6, the State of Kerala, the Commissioner of Excise and the Accountant General, respondents in the O.A , have instituted the instant original petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers [see page 11 of the paper book of the O.P]: - “ _1. To set aside Exhibit P6 Order dated 21.04.2021 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.2129/2019._ _2. To issue other reliefs, this Honourable Court may deem fit in the Original Application.”_ 5. Heard Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P/respondents in the O.A and Sri.Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal. 6. It is urged by Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P/respondents in the O.A that the Tribunal has proceeded on the premise as if, Annexure-A20 liability fixation order dated 16.09.2019, fixing the total liability of Rs.10,99,021/- as well as a further liability of Rs.87,750/- referred to in Annexure-A26 dated 16.11.2019, is the final figure of liability fixation. Further that, as a matter of fact, subsequent issuance of Annexure-A26 proceedings dated 16.11.2019, R2 in the O.A (Commissioner of Excise) has issued Annexure-A27 proceedings dated O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 5 24.08.2020, whereby the net liability of the applicant has been found and reduced only as Rs.1,65,348/- and after deducting the said amount from the total sanctioned DCRG amount, the balance DCRG amount of Rs.12,10,652/- has already been sanctioned and released to him. Further that, Annexure-A27 proceedings dated 24.08.2020 was produced as an additional document by the applicant before the Tribunal during the pendency of the O.A. But the legality or otherwise of Annexure-A27 proceedings has never been challenged in the O.A by amending the pleas in the O.A. Further that, the cardinal fact borne out from Annexure-A27 order dated 24.08.2020 has not been duly reckoned by the Tribunal, while issuing the directions in para 15 of Ext.P-6 final order. Further that, though the Tribunal has made a reference in para 14 of Ext.P-6 order about orders being passed by R2 in the O.A on 24.08.2020 for release of pensionary benefits, the impact of Annexure-A27 has not been considered in the rendering of Ext.P-6 verdict. That, since the aspects borne out from Annexure-A27 has not even been really reckoned for issuing directions in para 15 of Ext.P-6 order, the said directions and orders are not tenable and sustainable. Further that, the subsequent liability of Rs.87,750/- referred to in Annexure-A26, has been fixed after due issuance of notice to the applicant and the same has been finalized O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 6 before the expiry of the outer time limit of three years mandated in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part-III KSR. Further that, the final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-6 has been rendered on 21.04.2021, before the expiry of the three years outer time limit in the instant case, which is on 30.04.2021, in as much as, the applicant had retired from service on 30.04.2018. Hence, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would point out that the impugned verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-6 would deserve interdiction and that, if at all the original applicant has any case regarding the legality and correctness of Annexure-A27 proceedings or as against Annexure-A26, etc., the same could have been considered by the Tribunal only if the original applicant had amended the pleas in the O.A and after making explicit prayers seeking for quashment of the proceedings at Annexure-A26, AnnexureA27, etc. That, in the absence of the challenge as against Annexures-A26 & A27, the directions in para 15 of Ext.P-6 final order, are not sustainable, etc. 7. Per contra, Sri.Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A would contend that the matters borne out from Annexure-A27 has in fact been considered by the Tribunal in para 14 of internal page 11 of Ext.P-6 final O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 7 order, even though the said proceedings with reference to the Annexures so marked in the O.A as Annexure-A27, has not been mentioned therein. Further that, the amount of Rs.87,750/- covered by para 15(b) of Ext.P-6 order is the amount covered by Annexure-A26 proceedings dated 16.11.2019 and that, the said amount can never be alleged as liability as against the original applicant, as understood in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part-III KSR, in as much as such a liability cannot be ascertained and determined without reference to any departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings, as referred to in the main operative portion of Rule 3 Part-III KSR. Further that, the main fact of the matter is that the applicant in his capacity as the Head of the local office concerned as the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, has put to use the vehicle for various duties in connection with enforcement and detection in the Excise department and therefore, as Deputy Commissioner, he was constrained to use the vehicle and the only alternative was to employ a driver on daily wage basis. Further that, the case of the respondents in the O.A as if, the said vehicle was not formally allotted to the applicant's office at the relevant time, etc., is also not tenable and that, at any rate, that was the only vehicle at the department for being put to use in connection with the statutory duties and responsibilities to be discharged by the Excise O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 8 personnel under the direct control and supervision of the applicant in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Further that, if the applicant has not done so, then certainly the official respondents in the O.A would have alleged that the applicant would have failed his duty as Excise Officer in the matter of detection and enforcement of excise matters, etc. That therefore, the applicant had no other go, but to use the vehicle and by employing a daily rated personnel as driver and the said amount so expended cannot be even remotely imagine as a liability as understood in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part-III KSR, which can only be a liability which can be ascertained without resort to the disciplinary and judicial proceedings, as envisaged in the main operative portion of Rule 3 PartIII KSR. Further that, the Principal Secretary to Government in the Taxes Department has endorsed in Annexure-A25 that, the said liability allegations against the applicant cannot stand in the eye of law, etc. and that, it is without seeing the proper reasonings given by the Principal Secretary to Government, Taxes that the Additional Chief Secretary appears to have not relied on the same. Further, Sri.Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the O.P/original applicant would also pointedly urge that as a matter of fact, no show cause notice alleging the said liabilities in respect of the amount of O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 9 Rs.87,750/-, as referred to in Annexure-A26 has ever been given to the applicant at any point of time either prior to his retirement or within the outer time limit of three years from the date of retirement or even now and that, the said liability fixation process has been done fully behind the back of the original applicant and very crucially without hearing. Further that, in such a case, mere issuance of a notice will not suffice and the incumbent like the applicant should have been given reasonable opportunity of being heard by the decision maker, to decide in the crucial issue as to whether the said amount can be fixed as liability, which could be ascertained without reference to the judicial proceedings or disciplinary proceedings as referred to in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, etc. and that aspect required at least a proper and effective hearing of the applicant, who is the affected party and also a recent order thereon. Further that, this is without prejudice to the contentions of the applicant that, such an amount covered by Annexure-A26, the said amount of Rs.87,750/-, which is referred to in Annexure-A26 can never come within the ambit of liability, which can be ascertained without resort to departmental or judicial proceedings, as understood in the main operative portion of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, etc. and therefore, the said amount of liability covered by Annexure-A26 is null and void, etc. O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 10 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival pleas. Further that, the State Government had issued Annexure-A18 proceedings dated 30.09.2019, directing the Excise Commissioner to release the full amount of DCRG due to the applicant after obtaining an indemnity bond from the applicant, etc. Further that, though the bond was submitted by the applicant by Annexure-A10 on 22.12.2018 itself, DCRG amounts were not disbursed within time and even the amounts covered by Annexure-A27 was disbursed only after the issuance of Annexure-A27 on 24.08.2020. The said amount of which was received by him only sometime in September, 2020 or so. That, therefore the applicant is legally entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payment of the DCRG, etc. and that the impugned verdict of the Tribunal does not deserve any interdiction at the hands of this Court. 9. We have heard parties _in extenso_ and also given an anxious consideration to the rival pleas. The indisputable fact of the matter is that Annexure-A27 proceedings dated 24.08.2020 has not been seriously and properly reckoned by the Tribunal, before issuing the directions in terms of para.15 of Ext.P-6. From a reading of para.15, it appears that not only that the fixation of the entire liability amounts covered by clauses (a) & (b) of para.15 of Ext.P-6, has been set aside. But that, the O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 11 said amounts should also be released to the applicant, etc. Further that, the full amount of DCRG should also enure interest at the rate of 7% from 01.01.2019, till the date of payment, etc. 10. After hearing both sides, it appears that if the crucial matters borne out from Annexure-A27 dated 24.08.2020, had been taken into account by the Tribunal, then the net liability re-fixed by the petitioners was only Rs.1,65,348/- and not the higher amounts mentioned in para.15 of Ext.P-6. Further it appears that after deducting the said amount of Rs.1,65,348/-, the balance DCRG amount of Rs.12,10,652/- has already been released to the applicant, presumably after the issuance of Annexure-A27 dated 24.08.2020 or so. That being so, the figures mentioned in the direction regarding the full amounts covered by para 15 of Ext.P-6, may not fully be legally correct. Further, very crucially, the applicant should have amended the pleas in the O.A, if he had any grievances as against Annexure-A27 & Annexure-A26. The entire picture has changed with the issuance of Annexure-A27, in as much as the net liability alleged against the applicant should reduce to Rs.1,65,348/- and not the previously alleged higher figures. Then, adjudication should have been done by the Tribunal on that premise. Of course, the learned counsel for the applicant has got a case that, the amount of Rs.87,750/- O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 12 covered by Annexure-A26 is also inclusive of the total amount of Rs.1,65,348/- covered by Annexure-A27 and that, the said amount of Rs.87,750/- has not been fixed as liability within the outer time limit of three years, after hearing the applicant, etc. Those are all matters, which should have been urged by the applicant by setting up proper pleadings in that regard and after incorporation of proper and effective prayers. Further it appears that at the time of filing of Ext.P-1 O.A on 28.10.2021, only documents as per Annexure-A1 to Annexure-A23 and additional documents as per Annexure-A24 to Annexure-A29, have been produced and marked by the applicant only in Ext.P-4 rejoinder filed by him on 18.09.2020 in response to Ext.P-3 reply statement dated 19.11.2020 filed by R1 in the O.A. Indisputably, the pleadings in the O.A has not been amended and no prayers are so far been made to make any challenge as against Annexure-A26 & Annexure-A27, if at all, the applicant had any legally justiciable grievances as against the same. 11. This Court in the decision in the case in _**Narayanan** v._ _**State of Kerala**_ [1993 (1) KLT 461], was confronted with such a situation of the petitioner therein producing lot of documents after the filing of the main writ matter and this Court has held as follows in para.2 of the said decision, which reads as follows : O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 13 _“2. Before proceeding to state the facts of the case or dealing with the contentions raised by the parties, I must mention a feature that has been noted in many of the original petitions that have come up before me for hearing. Leave is often granted by this court for amending the original petitions incorporating new averments and new prayers besides producing new documents. Very often the amendments are not carried out in the original petition; nor copies of the amended original petition produced with the result the court has to wade through various petitions to get a true picture of the amended original petition. Such a situation exists in this original petition also, the petitioner not having chosen to carry out the amendment allowed by CMP.No. 15954 of 1992 in the original petition. Nor has he chosen to produce copies of the amended original petition. Normally this should have entailed refusal to look into the amendment. But I am refraining from doing so to avoid a failure of justice. It is necessary that all amendments to an original petition either in the averments or the prayers in the original petition or by way of production of new documents should be carried out in the original petition besides producing copies of the amended original petition for the use of the court and for service on the contesting respondents. However, as stated earlier I am treating the petition as one amended by CMP.No.15954 of 1992 and dealing with it as such despite the default on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the amendment. I must also mention that in between the original petition and C.M.P.No.15954 of 1992 a document had been introduced as Ext.P15 along with CMP.No. 14019 of 1992, a petition for direction. Having regard to the numbering of this annexure, it is clear that the petitioner intended that also to be treated as part of the original petition. But it has made its appearance in a petition for direction without being followed by any petition for amendment of the original petition. Production of such documents along with applications for interim relief to be treated as exhibits in the main petition also causes difficulties to the court when such production is not followed up by appropriate amendment. One of the problems that may arise is that the exhibit in question will remain unexplained and unanswered in any counter affidavit that may be filed by the respondents as it does not form part of the original petition itself, though that contingency does not arise so far as this case and Ext.P15 produced along with CMP.No.14019 are concerned. With these prefatory remarks I shall proceed to state the facts and deal with the matter on merits.”_ The said legal principles laid down by this Court in para.2 of **Narayanan's case** supra [1993 (1) KLT 461], is too well settled and elementary aspect of the matter. However, it is seen that in many of these matters, the applicant/petitioner will produce series of documents after the filing of the main matter before the Forum and the entire nature O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 14 of the case might change on the basis of the subsequent proceedings, which should have been issued after the filing of the main matter. Hence, in such case the applicant/petitioner is bound to ensure that the pleadings are appropriately amended and additional prayers also made, if challenge is to be made as against proceedings, which have not been challenged in the main matter. 12. Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter would require serious re-consideration at the hands of the Tribunal and the matter would warrant a remit. In that view of the matter, to effectuate such a remit, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-6 final order dated 21.04.2021 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench in O.A No.2129/2019, will stand set aside. Consequently, O.A No.2129/2019, will stand restored to the file of the Tribunal, for consideration and decision afresh. The respondent herein/original applicant will be at liberty to file appropriate application for amendment of the factual pleas, legal grounds as well as prayers to incorporate any challenge as against Annexure-A26, Annexure-A27, etc., within four weeks. This may be done by the applicant within the abovesaid timeline. The respondents in the O.A will immediately file the reply statement in the matter. The respondents in the O.A will O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 15 specifically and pin-pointly stated to the Tribunal, as to the details of the liabilities fixed in Annexure-A27 and also as to whether the amount of Rs.87,750/- referred to in Annexure-A26 is also inclusive of the amount of Rs.1,65,348/- covered by Annexure-A27. So also, the basis for the liability amount of Rs.87,750/- covered by Annexure-A26, should be made out and it should be pin-pointly stated before the Tribunal, as to whether notice was given to the applicant, giving the facts and figures on the basis of which they have come to the provisional decision that, a liability of Rs.87,750/- is to be attributed to the applicant and the detailed reasonings in support of such proposal. So also, it should be stated as to when a copy of the said notice should be produced before the Tribunal. It should also be stated before the Tribunal as to when such notice was served on the applicant and also as to whether the applicant was given an effective or reasonable opportunity of being heard, in the matter to defend his case that, the said amount of Rs.87,750/- cannot be envisaged as liability, which can be ascertained without resort to disciplinary proceedings and judicial proceedings, as understood in the main operative portion of Rule.3 Part-III KSR, etc. The Tribunal may then decide as to the legality or correctness of the abovesaid amount of Rs.87,750/- covered by Annexure-A26. So also, the respondents in the O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 16 O.A should state as to the details of the balance amounts covered by Annexure-A27 and whether such amounts were also quantified after due notice to the applicant, as above and after affording opportunity of being heard to the applicant, etc. The respondents in the O.A should also explain before the Tribunal, as to why they did not comply with the direction of the Government, as issued in terms of Annexure-A18 dated 30.09.2019, whereby R2 in the O.A-Excise Commissioner was directed to release the DCRG to the applicant, after obtaining indemnity bond and as to why the bond said to have been given by the applicant, as per Annexure-A10 was not acted upon and as to why the said amount was not released to him. In other words, detailed explanations should also be given by the respondents in the O.A in their additional reply statement, as to the reasons for the delayed disbursal of the DCRG amount, etc. and also as to why the interest claimed by the petitioner shall not be granted by the Tribunal, etc. The additional reply statement shall be filed by the respondents in the O.A, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the amended memorandum of the original application. The Tribunal may thereafter ensure the early consideration and final disposal of the present O.A No.2129/2019, without much delay. In view of the fact that the matter is being remitted, the Tribunal will ensure that the O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 17 final verdict may be rendered in the O.A, within six weeks from the date of completion of the pleadings within the abovesaid timeline, as above. We make it clear that, we have not entered into the merits of the main controversy that has been posed before us by the original applicant, etc. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand disposed of. **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** vgd O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 18 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 296/2021** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.2129/2019 ALONG**| |---|---| ||**WITH ANNEXURES.**| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENT**| ||**OF ALLEGATION NO.762532/F2/16/TD DATED**| ||**16.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEFENSE STATEMENT**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENQURY REPORT BEARING**| ||**NO.XVIG-3-116/2016 (VE-05/16) DATED 30-05-**| ||**2016**<br>**ISSUED**<br>**BY**<br>**THE**<br>**LETTER**| ||**NO.2658/2016/CELD DATED 22.09.2016ISSUED**| ||**BY THE EXCISE VIGILANCE OFFICER.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.2658/2016/CELD**| ||**DATED 22.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF**| ||**CHEMICAL EXAMINER TO GOVERNMENT TO THE**| ||**DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KOTTAYAM.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.312/2018/TD DATED**| ||**29.04.2018.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**05.2018**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.GE30/E/EX-S17/900**| ||**DATED 23.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER**| ||**(APPLICATION**<br>**NO.1218393491)**<br>**DATED**| ||**09.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A9**|**TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**APPLICANT DATED 04.07.2018 TO THE 2ND**| O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 19 ## **RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2018 ALONG WITH THE BOND DATED 22.12.2018.** - **ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTEFILES IN CONNECTION WITH ALLEGATIONS IN ANNEXRE A1.** - **ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATORY NOTE DATED 04.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT FINANCE INSPECTION OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.** - **ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DISTRICT FINANCE INSPECTION OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DATED 14.09.2018.** - **ANNEXURE A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT BEARING NO.A3/4003/14 DATED 18.01.2019 ISSUED BY SRI.K.MUHAMMED RASHEED TO THE APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A13 B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AR.01/15 DATED 01.05.2015 BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR ALAPPUZHA RANGE TO THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA.** - **ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTE (DATE NIL) SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.185/2002/FIN DATED 27.03.2002.** **ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.08.2019.** O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 20 |**ANNEXURE A17 A**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED**| |---|---| ||**BY APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**09.10.2019.**| |**ANNEXURE A17 B**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED**| ||**BY APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**22.01.2019.**| |**ANNEXURE A18**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F2/142/2019/TD**| ||**DATED 30.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A19**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.EXC/736/2918-XM6**| ||**DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A20**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EXC/736/2018-XM6**| ||**DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A21**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.77/2011/FIN DATED**| ||**02.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE**| ||**DEPARTMENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A22**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.90/2014/FIN DATED**| ||**08.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE**| ||**DEPARTMENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A23**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A7/2210/19 DATED**| ||**22.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE SUB TREASURY**| ||**OFFICER, KOLLAM.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY**| ||**THE SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE**| ||**R2(A) TO R2(C).**| |**ANNEXURE R2 A**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.XA7/16342/15**| ||**DATED 30.05.2018.**| |**ANNEXURE R2 B**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EXC/736/2018-**| ||**XM6 DATED 21.02.2019.**| |**ANNEXURE R2 C**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.55/19/FIN DATED**| ||**04.05.2019.**| O.P(KAT) No.296 of 2021 21 **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A24 TO A28 FILED BY THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.279/2020/TD DATED 29.04.2020. ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTE FILED OF TAXES DEPARTMENT. ANNEXURE A26 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TD-F2/283/2018TAXES DATED 16.11.2019. ANNEXURE A26 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER UNDER RTI ACT, BEARING NO.TDF2/84/2020-TAXES DATED 01.06.2020. ANNEXURE A27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EXC/736/2018-XM6 DATED 24.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A28 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.67/2020 FIN DATED 27.05.2020. EXHIBIT P5 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH ANNEXURE A29. ANNEXURE A29 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (KAT) NO.78/15 DATED 08.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.04.2021 IN THE AFORESAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION.**