CORPORATION OF KAZHIKODE Vs. RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned appeal is preferred by the Corporation of Kozhikode and its Secretary - respondents 2 & 3 in W.P.(C) No.19156 of 2011, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dtd. 5/11/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal was allowed and Exhibits P3 demand notice dtd. 26/6/2009, Exhibit P4 Memo dtd. 25/5/2009 and Exhibit P9 demand notice under sec. 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 demanding an amount of Rs.2,71,416.00 along with interest and other charges were quashed. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

(2.) The writ petitioner retired from the service of the Corporation of Kozhikode - the 1st appellant on 30/6/1999. After 10 years of retirement, she was served with Exhibit P3 notice by the Secretary of the Corporation of Kozhikode - the 2nd appellant, directing her and two others to pay Rs.69,936.00 and Rs.25,646.00 each with interest within 7 days. According to the writ petitioner, on enquiry she came to know that the appellants had earlier issued Exhibit P4 memo directing herself and four others to pay Rs.1,72,521.00 on the basis of the recommendation made from the Local Fund Audit Accounting, allegedly for noncollection of arrears of bus stand licence fee. Apparently the allegation is that, the writ petitioner and others omitted to take timely action to proceed with the appeal filed against the dismissal of S.T.No.750/1999, which was filed for recovering the arrears of bus stand fee dues from the contractor .

(3.) According to the writ petitioner, the Corporation proceeded against the Contractor engaged for collecting the bus stand fee by filing a complaint before the competent Magistrate Court but the case was dismissed on account of default on the part of the Advocate. It is further submitted that though the appeal was entrusted with a Counsel in the High Court, no timely action was taken. It is the further contention of the writ petitioner that she has nothing to do with the collection of arrears and she had retired from service before the order was passed in the case before the Magistrate Court and she is no way liable to pay the loss, if any, sustained to the Corporation.