N ANANDURAI Vs. DIVISIONAL EXCISE OFFICER KARUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking any further steps for collection of the alleged arrears of kist by the deceased mother of the petitioner in respect of arrack shop No. 6 Karur Taluk, for the excise year 1982-83.

(2.) IT is stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petitioner as follows:- The petitioner's mother Chellammal was a licensee for an arrack shop No. 6 Karur Taluk, for the Excise year 1982-83 and in respect of which, a sum of Rs. 3,14,075 seemed to be the arrears as evident from a communication received from the respondent dated 24. 3. 1988. This communication was served on the petitioner on 25. 4. 1988. The petitioner's mother Chellammal died on 1. 4. 1986. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on 2. 5. 1988. This was followed by further two letters from his Advocate on 15. 6. 1988 and 28. 7. 1988. He also gave a statement to the respondent in August, 1988 stating that on the death of his mother, no property of her's passed on to him. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner did not possess any property of his mother which had passed into his hands on her death. The respondent was taking steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 to collect the alleged arrears due by the petitioner's mother towards the kist as mentioned earlier from assets for which there was no authority of law. According to the petitioner, only a regular suit should be filed for recovery of the alleged arrears. The petitioner having received the notice under the Revenue Recovery act, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN my view, the above decision in The National engineering Co. , Ltd. Madras v. The Tahsildar, Fort, Tondiarpet Taluk, Madras and others, 1990 (2) MLJ 25, will not apply to the facts of the present case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in A. Damodaran v. State of Kerala and others, 1976 (3) SCC 61 : AIR 1976 SC 1533 that in matters arising under the abkari Act, it is not necessary that there should be a written agreement between the parties. The very fact that the Government has accepted the bid of the individual and had granted licence for selling arrack, could be sufficient to create a valid agreement between the parties.