IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 988 of 2009(E)
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR0, TALUK OFFICE,
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
Vs
1. GOPAKUMAR S/O.LATE MADHAVAN ILAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY
3. T.K.PUSHKARAN, S/O. KUNJUKOCHU,
4. T.P. JOSHY,S/O. PADMANABHAN,
5. C.K. BALAKRISHNAN S/O. DIVAKARAN,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :26/11/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P. No. 988 OF 2009 IN
WP(C) NO. 13696 OF 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated, this the 26th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent stating that
coercive steps were being pursued against him in respect of non
remittance of the contribution under the Toddy Workers’ Welfare Fund
Act, without serving any notice or the final assessment order so as to
enable him to have approached the appellate authority availing the
statutory remedy. It was also stated that, notwithstanding the non-
receipt of the order, the Writ Petitioner had approached the Government
by filing Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 stay petition, contending that
he was only a ‘Karmi’ in a Temple and not at all connected with the
running of the toddy shop in question.
2. When the Writ Petition came for admission, taking note of
the specific nature of averments, it was disposed of, directing the
Government to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2 appeal/
Ext.P3 petition for stay; however making it clear that, till appropriate
orders are passed in ExtP3 petition for stay, all further coercive steps
should be kept in abeyance.
RP No. 988 of 2009
in WP(C) 13696/2009 2
3. After finalisation of the proceedings as above, the State has
approached this Court by filing this Review Petition, stating that no such appeal
as contended by the Writ Petitioner had been filed before the Government and
hence that the matter required to be reviewed. In the course of the proceedings,
the second respondent filed a statement asserting that the contentions raised by
the Writ Petitioner were totally wrong, misleading and amounting to wilful mis-
representation; in so far as the second respondent had already issued a ‘pre-
assessment notice’ to the Writ Petitioner by registered post; that the Writ
Petitioner had entered appearance and filed a signed statement before the said
authority and further that the final determination order was passed and the same
was forwarded to the Writ Petitioner by registered post. The second respondent
has also produced a copy of the statement containing the signature of the Writ
Petitioner and also copies of acknowledgment cards returned. It was in the said
circumstances, that this Court passed an interim order on 20th November, 2009,
observing that, if the contentions raised in the Review Petition as well as in the
statement filed by the second respondent were correct, the matter would be
required to be dealt with seriously, granting time to the 1st respondent/Writ
Petitioner to file an affidavit to explain the sequence of events.
4. Pursuant to above order, the first respondent in the Review Petition
has now filed an affidavit dated 24th November 2009; virtually conceding the
specific averments raised by the second respondent in the statement, to the
effect that the pre-assessment notice was served upon him; that he had
RP No. 988 of 2009
in WP(C) 13696/2009 3
executed a signed statement before the said authority and further that the final
order was served to him. This being the position, it is very much clear that the
Writ Petitioner has made a clear misrepresentation; which is liable to be
proceeded against, by way of appropriate proceedings. However, the learned
counsel for the first respondent in the Review Petition (petitioner in the Writ
Petition), submits that the said respondent actually received the concerned
proceedings about 9 years back; that he could not actually recollect the proper
course of events and it was in the said circumstance, that he gave the
instructions to the counsel in Thrissur who in turn conveyed the same to the
Counsel at Ernakulam to have the Writ Petition filed before this Court. The
explanation offered from the part of the first respondent does not appear to be
palatable to this Court and this Court records the extreme displeasure with
regard to the manner in which the Writ Petition was filed and got finalized,
though this Court does not intend to proceed further against the Writ Petitioner,
considering the totality of all the facts and circumstances.
The Review Petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is recalled.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the
Review Petitioner/State of Kerala.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc