Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.THAHA KOYA, S/O. ALIKUNJU versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.THAHA KOYA, S/O. ALIKUNJU v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 32454 of 2006(L) [2007] RD-KL 3516 (19 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32454 of 2006(L)

1. A.THAHA KOYA, S/O. ALIKUNJU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE TAHSILDAR,

4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

5. WEST QUILON MATCH INDUSTRIAL

For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :19/02/2007

O R D E R

K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.

W.P.(C).No.32454 of 2006-L

Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Exhibit P1 demand notice by which the Government had initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the amount due from the 5th respondent-Society to the State.

2. The petitioner was the President of the 5th respondent Society. The accounts of the Society were being audited by the Government from time to time. The Society have to deposit the audit fee. The Society did not deposit the audit fee. So an amount of Rs.1,02,018/- is due to the Government by way of audit fee. It is for recovery of that amount, Exhibit P1 demand notice was issued. According to the petitioner, he has no personal liability to pay the amount and this has to be recovered from the asset of the Society, if any. A perusal of Exhibit P1 notice shows that in fact it was addressed to the Society and not to the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner is that after issuing such a demand notice, the authorised officer is trying to recover W.P.(C).No.32454 of 2006-L the same from the person of the petitioner as well as his properties. In O.P.No.23467 of 2002, this Court has taken a view that for the amounts due from the Society, a member of the Society cannot be made personally liable. In fact, the respondents have no case that there is any provision in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act which makes the members of the Director Board personally responsible for the audit fee due from the Society. It goes without saying that State cannot initiate any steps to recover the amount from the person or property of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: It is declared that the petitioner is not personally liable for the amount claimed in Exhibit P1 notice as the same was audit fee due from the Society. His properties are also not liable to be attached and sold for the audit fee. I make it clear that this order will not be a bar for the Government to recover the amount from the asset of the Society, if any. K.Padmanabhan Nair Judge vku/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.