1. Petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of dues under the Kerala Cashew Workers Relief and Welfare Fund Act, 1979. The assessment order is seen at Ext.P4. The petitioner had moved an appeal, as provided under the statute and had also obtained a stay from the appellate authority. However, subsequently, the appeal itself was dismissed by Ext.P9, holding that the appeal was filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute. Admittedly, as per sub- section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, an appeal had to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The appellate authority is not conferred with any power to condone the delay occasioned in the matter of filing such appeals. Hence, there could be no interference made to Ext.P9 as has been held in Panopharam v.
W.P.(C)No.26821 of 2014 -:2:-
Union of India (2010 (3) KLT 149).
2. However, the petitioner's contention is that, he had, in fact, satisfied the entire dues and it is mistakenly that the recovery has now been initiated. In the context of such prayer and also because the petitioner obtained an interim order of stay, when the appeal was pending, Ext.P11 shall be stayed for a period of two months from today. In the meanwhile, the petitioner can approach the authority to issue a computation on Ext.P4 and convince him about the payments made. The second respondent shall also issue a computation of the dues and payments made as also the dues remaining to be paid to the petitioner within two weeks of the production of the certified copy of this judgment. Revenue recovery proceedings shall depend upon such computation and if satisfaction is found by the second respondent, then, necessarily, the second respondent shall intimate W.P.(C)No.26821 of 2014 -:3:-
the same to the revenue recovery authority. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall be permitted to produce documents to substantiate his grievance.
Writ petition is disposed off.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.