The petitioner, against whom proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, approached this Court through the present writ petition impugning Ext.P7 notice and Ext.P8 proceedings of the 1st respondent. Ext.P7 is a notice issued under Section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the “RR Act”, asking the petitioner to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued. Ext.P8 is a proceedings of the 1st respondent whereby, after obtaining a report from the Tahasildar (RR) Thalassery, the 1st respondent has decided to invoke Section 65 of the RR Act against three defaulters, including the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that, in response to Exts.P7 and P8 communications, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P9 representation, stating his medical condition and seeking a lenient view in the matter. No orders are seen passed on the said representation preferred by the petitioner against Exts.P7 and P8 communication. As already noted, in the writ petition, Exts.P7 and P8 W.P.(C).No.35247/2005 2 are impugned, and a direction is sought to the respondents not to issue any warrant of arrest against the petitioner pending a passing of final orders pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8. 2. I have heard Smt.Vidhya Nayanar A.C., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Smt.Lilly.K.T., the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that, in the instant case, against Exts.P7 notice and P8 proceedings issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 representation seeking the 1st respondent's indulgence in the matter and praying for a lenient view to be taken in the matter of arrest of the petitioner. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that, while the partners of the petitioner in business had already approached this Court on earlier occasions and obtained orders from this Court, the petitioner's representation has not been considered by the 1st respondent till date. It is also stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court through any other writ petition claiming a similar relief. Taking note W.P.(C).No.35247/2005 3 of the said submissions of counsel for the petitioner, and the submission that the petitioner is undergoing medical treatment for a heart ailment , and that his condition has not improved over the past couple of years, I dispose this writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, based on Ext.P9 representation, and any other document that the petitioner seeks to rely on, and pass orders on the said representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp