Judgment :- Radhakrishnan J. The Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, a Government of Kerala undertaking has filed these appeals aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge interfering with the proceedings initiated by the Corporation under the Revenue Recovery Act for realization of an amount of Rs. 1,30,39,169/- from the estate of one desceased Mohammed Kunhi and the petitioners towards the cost of 551.0365 M.T. of sugar alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner in O.P. No. 13127 of 2000. 2. The Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is the wholesale nominee of the State Government for public distribution of sugar in the State. Corporation purchases levy sugar from the designated sugar mills, allotted by the Central Government for distribution through the authorized distributors at subsidised rates. Corporation also purchases free sale sugar from open market on a competitive basis for being sold through its Super Markets and Maveli Stores. Sugar mills from where corporation is required to lift levy sugar is lifted and transported by authorized transporters to be delivered to 61 Taluk depots maintained by the corporation from where authorised retail distributors could collect the same. 3. Transporting contractors are selected by the corporation for lifting and transporting both levy and free sale sugar on the basis of tenders for periods of three months each. The price of the levy sugar as determined by the Central Government will have to be paid to the concerned sugar mills in advance by demand drafts. Tenders are invited from transporting contractors who are selected every month on the basis of open tenders and negotiations. Authorised transporting contractors are entrusted with the demand draft towards payment for sugar, and they have to lift the sugar from the concerned mills and deliver the same to the designated depots on the basis of the tender conditions. 4. Corporation had by notification No. S4-9765/99 invited tenders for transportation of levy sugar for the three month period from July 1999 to September 1999. Tender was submitted by Ahmed Kunhi, petitioner in O.P. No. 13127 of 2000 in his capacity as power of attorney holder of his father Mohammed Kunhi, proprietor of a transporting Company known as Yenyenyes Transports, Cochin 33. Ahmed Kunhi as power of attorney holder signed the said tender and submitted the same to the corporation on 11.5.1999. Tender was submitted by Ahmed Kunhi, petitioner in O.P. No. 13127 of 2000 in his capacity as power of attorney holder of his father Mohammed Kunhi, proprietor of a transporting Company known as Yenyenyes Transports, Cochin 33. Ahmed Kunhi as power of attorney holder signed the said tender and submitted the same to the corporation on 11.5.1999. Corporation had accepted the said tender and entrusted the transportation of 1000 M.T. of levy sugar which has been allotted by the Central Government to be lifted from E.I.D. Parry Ltd. against the quota for the month of July 1999. Accordingly four work orders dated 7.6.1999, 11.6.1999, 17.6.1999 and 29.6.1999 were issued to the petitioner for the purpose of lifting and transporting of 1000 M.T. of sugar from E.I.D. Parry Ltd. Work orders along with demand drafts and authorizing letters for lifting levy sugar from M/s South India Sugars Tamil Nadu against the quota for August 1999 were also received by the representative of the petitioner, Abdulla Kunhi. Corporation had also arranged for the purchase of free sale sugar from M/S Mysore Sugar Company, Mandya. Work order for lifting and transporting 380 Metric Tonnes of free sale sugar as well as the demand draft for Rs. 57,11,000/- dated 18.9.1999 were accepted by the representative of Yenyenyes Transports. 5. Corporation later noticed that even though the entire levy and free sale sugar had been lifted by Abdulla Kunhi through his representative from the aforesaid sugar mills certain quantities had been misappropriated by him and failed to deliver the same to the designated depots. The details regarding the sugar delivered and stated to have been misappropriated by M/s Yenyenyes Transports are as follows: 6. As per the tender conditions, the authorised transporter was required to deliver the goods lifted from the concerned sugar mills to the designated depots within 15 days in the case of sugar mills in Tamil Nadu and 20 days in the case of sugar mills in Karnataka. Later Corporation got intimation from E.I.D. Parry India Limited as well as South India Sugars Limited that Yenyenyes Transports had already lifted from E.I.D. parry ltd. only 886.982 M.Ts were delivered to the depots and the balance 113.0180 misappropriated. Enquiries also revealed that though 640 Metric Tonnes of levy sugar for August quota were lifted from M/s South India Sugars only 388.995 Metric Tonnes have been delivered to the depots. only 886.982 M.Ts were delivered to the depots and the balance 113.0180 misappropriated. Enquiries also revealed that though 640 Metric Tonnes of levy sugar for August quota were lifted from M/s South India Sugars only 388.995 Metric Tonnes have been delivered to the depots. The above mentioned facts would indicate that out of 1,640 Metric Tonnes of sugar allotted for July and August 1999, 364.023 M.T. of sugar were not delivered by Yenyenyes Tramsports to the depots. This is the position according to the Corporation which prevailed prior to 22.8.1999. Corporation submits as per the terms and conditions of the tender they are entitled to recover at the rate of double the cost of sugar not delvered. 7. We have to advert to certain crucial facts for a proper and just disposal of these cases. The tender was submitted by Abdulla Kunhi in his capacity as power of attorney holder of Mohammed Kunhi, his father, the proprietor of a transporting company Yenyenyes Transports, Cochin 33. The power of attorney dated 12.6.1997 authorised Abdulla Kunhi to act on behalf of Mohammed Kunhi, his father. Till 22.8.1999 Abdulla Kunhi was acting as power of attorney holder of Mohammed Kunhi, his father. Abdulla Kunhi's father Mohammed Kunhi died on 22.8.1999. Consequently Abdulla Kunhi had no authority to carry on the business on the basis of power of attorney of the deceased. The death of Mohammed Kunhi was not made known to the corporation. We have indicated that Corporation had invited tenders for transport of levy sugar for three months from July 1999 to September 1999. On the death of Mohammed Kunhi his son Abdulla Kunhi has no legal right to transact any business on the strength of the power of attorney or otherwise. Without disclosing the fact that his father Mohammed Kunhi had died on 22.8.1999 he quoted the rates for the month of September 1999 as well on behalf Yenyenyes Transports. Corporation invited rates on 10.9.1999 for transporting free sale sugar for the month of September 1999. In the negotiations held on 16.9.1999 Abdulla Kunhi personally attended and had affixed his signature in token of having participated in the negotiations on the said day on behalf of M/s Yenyenyes Transports. He quoted rates on 16.9.1999 for transporting sale of sugar. Corporation invited rates on 10.9.1999 for transporting free sale sugar for the month of September 1999. In the negotiations held on 16.9.1999 Abdulla Kunhi personally attended and had affixed his signature in token of having participated in the negotiations on the said day on behalf of M/s Yenyenyes Transports. He quoted rates on 16.9.1999 for transporting sale of sugar. The petitioner even while he had no authority to act on behalf of the deceased father had attended the meeting convened for negotiating rates on 16.9.1999 and even quoted rates on behalf of Yenyenyes Transports. Corporation had accepted the rates quoted by Abdulla Kunhi for transportation of 380 tonnes of free sale sugar from M/s Mysore Sugar Company, Mandya as per letter No. s2-21235 dated 18.9.1999. The entire sugar was to be lifted before 30.9.1999 and to be delivered to the depots. By proceedings dated 24.9.1999 the transportation work was also entrusted with Yenyenyes Transports. Out of 380 Metric Tonnes, Abdulla Kunhi had delivered only 192.9865 Metric Tonnes and failed to deliver 187.0135 Metric Tonnes which had been misappropriated by him. The fact that they had lifted sugar from the sugar mills is proved by records made available from the sugar mills. The entire quantity lifted were not delivered to depots. This is the complaint of the Corporation. 8. As far as 187.0135 Metric Tonnes of sugar is concerned, we have indicated that Abdulla Kunhi is personally liable since he had lifted the quantity after the death of his father on 22.8.1999 and he is bound by the rates quoted by him in the negotiation held on 16.9.1999 personally. We find revenue recovery notice for an amount of Rs. 1,30,39,169/- has been issued by the corporation, being the cost of 364.0230 M.T. of levy sugar and 187.013 M.T. of free sale sugar. Notices were issued by the corporation to the legal representatives of Mohammed Kunhi as well as Abdulla Kunhi for realisation of the amount mentioned above. Since amounts were not paid revenue recovery proceedings were initiated which is under challenge in these writ petitions. Learned single judge interfered with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the corporation and set aside those orders leaving the Corporation to take other proceedings in accordance with law. 9. Senior Counsel appearing for the corporation submitted that learned single judge was not justified in interfering with the revenue recovery proceedings. Learned single judge interfered with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the corporation and set aside those orders leaving the Corporation to take other proceedings in accordance with law. 9. Senior Counsel appearing for the corporation submitted that learned single judge was not justified in interfering with the revenue recovery proceedings. Counsel submitted that Corporation is a fully owned Government of Kerala establishment and that it is engaged in the distribution of essential commodities. The Revenue Recovery Act has been made statutorily applicable to the Corporation also. Counsel submitted it was on the basis of that, proceedings were initiated to recover the amount from the petitioners towards cost of sugar which was not delivered to the depots though lifted from the sugar mills. Counsel submitted as per the terms and conditions of the tender the Corporation is legally entitled to recover double the purchase cost of sugar towards the shortage occurred in the delivery of sugar which would work to Rs. 1,30,39,169/- Counsel submitted that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the amounts due which could be arrived at by simple mathematical calculations. Counsel submitted Corporation is justified in initiating proceedings for recovery of the amount due. 10. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners on the other hand contended that revenue recovery proceedings can be thought of against the petitioners only on adjudication of the disputes between the petitioners are not defaulters within the meaning of the Revenue Recovery Act. Even if there is any amount due counsel submitted, it is only from the father and not from the petitioners had not entered into any contract with the Corporation and therefore they cannot be characterised as defaulters. Counsel submitted Abdulla Kunhi was only the power of attorney holder and even if there is a default on the part of Mohammed Kunhi, his father, power of attorney holder cannot be made liable. 11. Placing reliance on the decision of the Privy Council in Bhai Panna Singh V. Bhai Arjun Singh (AIR 1929 P.C.179) and also in Fateh Chand V. Balkishan Dass (AIR 1963 S.C. 1405) counsel submitted for realisation of any amount from the defaulter it is the bounden duty of the person who claims the amount to prove the damages. Counsel submitted that unilateral fixation of the amount from the petitioner is unwarranted and illegal. 12. Counsel submitted that unilateral fixation of the amount from the petitioner is unwarranted and illegal. 12. We are of the view learned single judge completely misdirected in holding that the Corporation would resort to other proceedings for the recovery of the amount. The Corporation can compute the amounts due to it from the contractor on the basis of the official records regarding the quantity of sugar lifted and quantity delivered and on the basis of facts which are discernible and on the basis of the terms and conditions agreed upon which do not require a detailed adjudication by the civil court. Such adjudication would protract the litigation which persons like the petitioners would be longing for. On appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands so as to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court. We have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the Managing Director of the Corporation before this court that Ahamed Kunju had not disclosed the fact of death of his father and acted upon the power of attorney of a deceased person, lifted sugar worth lakhs and then failed to deliver the same at the destination. Ahamed Kunji should be held personally liable for this fraudulent conduct. 13. We will first examine the nature of the contract entered into between the Corporation as well as Yenyenyes Transports, Cochin 33 of which Mohammed Kunhi was the proprietor. Mohammed Kunhi is the father of Abdulla Kunhi. He had executed the power of attorney on 12.6.1987 in favour of Abdulla Kunhi, his son. Government of India as per letter dated 220.5.1999 had allotted 1000 M.T. of levy sugar to the State of Kerala towards July 1999 quota from M/s E.I.D. Parry Limited, Pugalur. Admittedly Yenyenyes Transports was authorised to lift 1000 M.T. of levy sugar from E.I.D.. Parry which is evident from Exts. R2 (d) to R2 (f). Ext.R2(g) would show that Yenyenyes Transports had taken delivery of 1000 M.T. of sugar from E.I.D. Parry Ltd., Pogular. This was later got confirmed by the Corporation from E.I.D. Parry Limited, out of 1000 M.T. of sugar lifted by Yenyenyes Transports only 886.982 M.T. of sugar was delivered to the depots and the balance of 113.0180 M.T. of sugar had not been delivered. This was later got confirmed by the Corporation from E.I.D. Parry Limited, out of 1000 M.T. of sugar lifted by Yenyenyes Transports only 886.982 M.T. of sugar was delivered to the depots and the balance of 113.0180 M.T. of sugar had not been delivered. As per the tender conditions burden is entirely on the petitioner to establish that he had delivered the whole quantity of sugar to the depots after lifting the same from the sugar mills. As per the terms and conditions he had to produce G.R.S. Delivery Note etc. to the corporation. We have already found that the petitioner had lifted 1000 n M.T. of sugar from E.I..D. Parry Ltd. But not produced G.R.S., Delivery Note in respect of of 113.0180 M.T. of sugar. 14. There was a further allotment for the month of August 1999 which was 640 M.T. to be lifted from South India Sugars. South India Sugars had confirmed that they had delivered 388.995 M.T. sugar to M/s Yenyenyes Transports. Petitioner had lifted 640 M.T. of sugar. However, petitioner failed to produce G.R.S, Delivery Note etc. for 251.0050 M.T. of sugar to the Corporation. In this connection it is profitable to refer to some of the terms and conditions of the tender notification. 15. Cost of sugar meant for sugar mills will be drawn as demand draft by the corporation and handed over to the contractor along with the work order. The demand drafts, work order, authorization and delivery note book should be collected from the Head Office by the tenderer or his authorised responsible representative on the same day of the readliness of the documents. He should take delivery of the stock from the sugar mills on behalf of the corporation on proper authoriszation letter from the Corporation. The contractor is responsible for delivery of the same quanitity (number of bags and weight) and quality of sugar lifted from sugar mills to destination depots. Any loss or damage or shortage or change of quality in transit to the stock of sugar will be realized from the contractor. The recovery will be made at the rate of double the cost of sugar. 16. While preferring the claim of transport charges contractor's copy of GRS and delivery note should be attached and supporting vouchers for stock delivered. Claims enclosed with acknowledgements in any other form will not be considered. 17. The recovery will be made at the rate of double the cost of sugar. 16. While preferring the claim of transport charges contractor's copy of GRS and delivery note should be attached and supporting vouchers for stock delivered. Claims enclosed with acknowledgements in any other form will not be considered. 17. A statement (in duplicate) showing the total quantity allotted, quantity lifted and the name of station and quantity delivered should be submitted to sugar section in the Head office of the corporation along with final bills for verification. The aforementioned terms and conditions would indicate that burden is on the petitioner to show that sugar lifted from the sugar mills were delivered to the depots. 18. We have already indicated that M/s E.I.D. Parry Limited, South India Sugars and M/s Mysore Sugar Company, Mandya have all intimated the fact that they had delivered sugar to M/s Yenyenyes Transports after obtaining Demand Drafts from them. We have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by them. Petitioners had not produced any document to show the delivery of the entire item lifted. By non-delivery of sugar Corporation might have sustained loss. We have therefore no hesitation to hold that for the cost of sugar lifted and not delivered at the depots Yenyenyes Transports and Abdulla Kunhi are fully responsible. 19. We will examine scenario subsequent to 22.8.1999, after the death of Mohammed Kunhi. We may add that on the death of the father, Abdulla Kunhi has no legal right to act on the power of attorney. Fact of death of the father was not disclosed to the Corporation. Managing Director has sworn to an affidavit to that effect. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by the Managing Director that death of the father was not disclosed to the Corporation. Without disclosing the said fact, he had participated in the negotiation held on 16.9.1999 personally and affixed his signature for and on behalf of M/s Yenyenyes Transports, namely, proprietory concern of his father. Petitioner had quoted rates on 16.9.1999 for transporting free sale sugar as evidenced by Ext. R2(k). Corparatiion had accepted the rates quoted by the petitioner for 380 Metric Tonnes of free sale sugar from M/s Mysore sugar company, Mandya as per letter dated 18.9.1999. By proceeding dated 24.9.1999 the aforesaid transportation work was also entrusted with M/s yenyenyes transports. Petitioner had quoted rates on 16.9.1999 for transporting free sale sugar as evidenced by Ext. R2(k). Corparatiion had accepted the rates quoted by the petitioner for 380 Metric Tonnes of free sale sugar from M/s Mysore sugar company, Mandya as per letter dated 18.9.1999. By proceeding dated 24.9.1999 the aforesaid transportation work was also entrusted with M/s yenyenyes transports. Out of the said 380 metric tones, petitioner had delivered only 192.9865 Metric Tonnes and failed to deliver 187.0135 Metric Tonnes to various depots. The fact that he had lifted 380 metric Tonnes of sugar from M/s Mysore Sugar Company was re-affirmed by them. We are of the view that the entire responsibility is on Ahamed Kunhi to show that the required quantity had been delivered to the depots. We are of the view since petitioner had acted on behalf of M/s Yenyenyes Transports, participated in the negotiation and quoted rates he is therefore bound by the terms and conditions of the tender notification. He was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the tender notification. We are of the view that since Mohammed Kunhi died on 22.8.1999 his estate cannot be held liable for the transaction which the petitioner had personally entered into subsequent to the death of Mohammed Kunhi for which petitioner alone is to be held liable. 20. Learned single judge, in our view, has clearly misdirected himself in taking the view that there had been no assessment of the dues from the petitioner. We have already indicated that M/s E.I.D. Parry Limited as well as South Indian Sugars and M/s Mysore Sugar Company had re-affirmed that they had delivered the quantity of sugar to M/s Yenyenyes Transports on receipt of delivery note. The responsibility is entirely on the petitioner as power of attorney holder of his father as well as personally after the death of the father to show that the sugar lifted was delivered to the depots. Petitioner had to produce copy of the G.R.S. (Goods Received Sheets) as well as delivery note. Statement showing the total quantity allotted, quantity lifted, name of station and quantity delivered should be submitted to the sugar section in the Head Office of the Corporation. It is entirely the responsibility of the petitioner and not the corporation. Petitioner had to produce copy of the G.R.S. (Goods Received Sheets) as well as delivery note. Statement showing the total quantity allotted, quantity lifted, name of station and quantity delivered should be submitted to the sugar section in the Head Office of the Corporation. It is entirely the responsibility of the petitioner and not the corporation. Petitioner has not produced any document either before the Corporation or before this Court to show that he had delivered the entire quantity of sugar lifted from the sugar mills mentioned herein before and not discharged the burden. Petitioner can claim transportation charges only on production of those documents. 21. We find the petitioner has filled a civil suit, O.S. 321/2000 claiming transportation charges from the Corporation. We could appreciate the strategy of filing the civil suit. If any transporting charge is due to the petitioner he should have produce the G.R.S before the Corporation and file a statement. This has not been done. Learned single judge has found fault with the Corporation in the manner in which they had issued notice dated 14.3.2000 and pointed out minor discrepancies to grant relief to the petitioner. If there is any discrepancy in the quantity the same should have been pointed out to the Corporation by the petitioner rather than taking advantage of it. We cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there should be an adjudication before making the demand. We are of the view no adjudication is necessary in the instant case. Anyone can decide the amount on mere mathematical calculation. Corporation is not calming damages. Corporation is demanding for double the actual price of sugar, a fact which is well within the knowledge of the Corporation, E.I.D. Parry Limited, South India Sugar and M/s Mysore Sugar Company, Mandya as well as the petitioner. Cost of sugar is fixed since Demand Drafts were sent to the suppliers through transporting contractor. The cost of sugar has been worked out at double the rate strictly on the basis of the terms and conditions of the contract. Corporation is not demanding damages, only the price of sugar at double the rate is demanded. Amount claimed by the Corporation in the notice dated 14.3.2000, as already mentioned, is as per the terms and conditions agreed upon. 22. Corporation is not demanding damages, only the price of sugar at double the rate is demanded. Amount claimed by the Corporation in the notice dated 14.3.2000, as already mentioned, is as per the terms and conditions agreed upon. 22. We are of the view that the Corporation has got the legal right to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. State of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred has enacted the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to recovery of arrears of public revenue in the State of Kerala. The notification issued under Section71 confers right to the Corporation to recover amount due to it without recourse to civil suit. Apex court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 70,68 and 71 read with the notification issued by the State Government in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kallyanikutty (1999 (2) KLT 146). After considering the provisions of the said Act, apex court held as follows: "The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act does not create any new right. It merely provides a process for speedy recovery of moneys due. Since this Act does not create any new right, the person claiming recovery cannot claim recovery of amounts which are not legally recoverable nor can a defence of limitation available to a debtor in a suit or other legal proceeding be taken away under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act." We are of the view Corporation is justified in invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act since there cannot be any dispute regarding the price of sugar. We reiterate that the Corporation is not claiming damages. 23. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to give the following declaration. a) Estate of Mohammed Kunhi be made liable for the cost of short delivery of 364.023 Metric Tonnes of sugar against July and August 1999 at double the rate of sugar as per the terms and conditions. Corporation will work out the said amount after issuing notice to the petitioners. Corporation should make available aforementioned letters received from E.I.D. Parry Limited, South India Sugar Co. and M./s Mysore Sugar Company to the petitioners which would evidence that they had delivered the sugar to Yenyenyes Transports. Corporation will work out the said amount after issuing notice to the petitioners. Corporation should make available aforementioned letters received from E.I.D. Parry Limited, South India Sugar Co. and M./s Mysore Sugar Company to the petitioners which would evidence that they had delivered the sugar to Yenyenyes Transports. It is open to the petitioners especially Abdulla Kunhi to produce G.R.S. and Delivery Notes and other supporting documents evidencing delivery of the Sugar lifted failing which Corporation would work out double the cost of sugar and recover the same through revenue recovery proceedings from the estate of Mohammed Kunhi. 24. We declare that for the quantity lifted subsequent to 22.8.1999, that is after the death of Mohammed Kunhi, Abdulla Kunhi is personally liable and not the estates of Mohammed Kunhi. We find that there is shortage of 187.0135 Metric Tonnes of free sale of sugar from September 1999 quota. Consequently we give the following direction. Ahmed Kunji, the petitioner in O.P. NO. 13127 of 2000 be personally liable for the short delivery of sugar from the quota lifted for the month of September 1999 at double the rate as per the terms and conditions. Corporation would issue registered notice to Abdulla Kunhi and also make available the letters received from Mysore Sugar Company, Mandya evidencing delivery of the sugar in the name of Yenyenyes Transports. If Abdulla Kunhi is not producing any G.R.S. or Delivery Note to the Corporation they could initiate recovery proceedings against Abdulla Kunhi personally at double the rate of sugar from his assets and recover the same. After playing a fraud on the corporation, Abdulla Kunhi has come to this court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226. This is a fit case to decline jurisdiction. But, in the interest of justice, we are ordering to give him a chance of being heard, so that he can convince the Corporation regarding any discrepancies in their computation of the quantum of sugar lifted and delivered or about its price. 25. We have already held that aforementioned amounts are not damages claimed by the Corporation but actual cost of sugar at double the rate as per the terms and conditions. Corporation can also file civil suit and recover damages or loss caused to them for non delivery of the sugar in time. 26. Petitioners can also approach the Corporation for transporting charges due on production of the relevant documents. Corporation can also file civil suit and recover damages or loss caused to them for non delivery of the sugar in time. 26. Petitioners can also approach the Corporation for transporting charges due on production of the relevant documents. They are entitled to get transporting charges only after it is shown that they had delivered the entire quantity of sugar lifted from the sugar mills to the depots as per the terms and conditions in time, provided no amount is due to the Corporation. It is so ordered. Writ appeals are allowed as above. Judgment of the learned single is accordingly set aside.