Grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to Ext.P7(b) order, passed by the 5th respondent, whereby the delay of '1824 days' in filing the revision petition was declined to be condoned leading to dismissal of Ext.P7 revision petition and also in respect of dismissal of Ext.P7(c) review petition, vide Ext.P7(d) order dated 19.9.2014. The sequence of events is as follows:
2. The petitioner took an 'Ice plant' on lease from the 4th respondent Panchayat. Admittedly, due to various reasons, the petitioner could not conduct the business for all the period covered by the lease and the plant was surrendered. The petitioner alleges lapses on the part of the Panchayat in curing the defects pointed out and that sufficient number of ice cans were not provided to the petitioner for conducting the business in an effective manner.
3. The Panchayat issued Ext.P2, demanding the petitioner to clear the arrears in connection with the lease and electricity charges. Since there was no response on the part of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Revenue Authorities leading to issuance of Ext.P3.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. But no adjudication was pursued under Section 34 of the R.R. Act. This made the petitioner to file O.S. No. 651/2009 before the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. It is conceded by the petitioner that, better wisdom came to the petitioner only later, that the suit was not maintainable and in the said circumstances, the petitioner made arrangement to withdraw the suit and approached the 5th respondent by filing Ext.P7 revision petition under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act along with a petition to condone the delay. Considering the extent of delay (1824 days) and finding that the explanation offered was not satisfactory, the said petition was rejected and as a natural consequence, the revision petition as well. Though the petitioner filed Ext.P7(c) review petition, the same also did not turn to be fruitful, having dismissed the same vide Ext.P7(d). It was followed by Ext.P8 sale notice, whereby sale of the concerned property is scheduled to be held on 30.10.2014. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat submits that, in spite of issuance of Ext.P2 demand notice, the same was not satisfied by the petitioner, nor did he take any steps to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings.
6. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
7. During the course of hearing, it is also pointed out from the part of the petitioner that, the initial liability sought to be mulcted upon the petitioner vide Ext.P2 issued by the Panchayat was only to the tune of Rupees 1.16 lakhs. But coming to Ext.P5, the total extent of liability is stated as Rs.3,22,983/- plus 5% collection charges. It is stated that the figures do not reconcile with each other.
8. The limited question to be considered is whether the 5th respondent was right in rejecting the proceedings filed by the petitioner and whether an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to establish the facts and figures. It is true that, the revision petition filed under Section 83(1) Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was belated and hence accompanied with a petition to condone delay of 1824 days. But it has to be borne that the petitioner was prosecuting the matter right from the year 2009, though before a wrong forum, by filing O.S. No.651/2009 before the concerned Civil Court till the year 2014 as borne by Ext.P6(a). According to the petitioner, it is a case to be considered in the light of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, for having pursued the matter before a wrong Forum, for the purpose of computation and consideration of delay. It is also to be noted that, it is not a case of total abandonment of right or callous inaction on the part of the petitioner, who was pursing the proceedings before another Forum. The reason for condoning the delay is with reference to the said proceedings and whether the said reason could be accepted or not, is the point to be considered.
9. With regard to the question of condoning delay, it has been made clear by the hon'ble Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan V. M.Krishnamurthy (1998 (7) SCC 123), that the question to be considered is not the extent of delay but the explanation. Going by the conduct of the petitioner, it is seen that on receipt of the proceedings, the petitioner sought to challenge the same by approaching the Civil Court, though it is a wrong forum and it was pending till recently. As such, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be termed as a person who was simply sleeping over the issue and hence this Court finds that the merit of the case has necessarily to be considered.
10. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders Ext.P7 (b) and P7(d) are set aside and the 5th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 revision petition on merits. Striking a balance with regard to nature and extent of relief sought for and the challenge raised, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of `1.16 lakhs (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand only) within 'three weeks', subject to which, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. The 5th respondent is directed to pass final orders on Ext.P7 on merits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the Panchayat, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of a writ petition before the 5th respondent for further steps.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn