IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8089 of 2009(E)
1. K.EDAYABHANU , VALUPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
2. A.S.BIJU
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER
3. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR
4. THE TAHSIDLAR (RR)
5. THE MANAGER
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.8089 of 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Petitioners were the licensees of Toddy Shops
Nos:74 to 124 of Alappuzha Excise Range, during the
year 2000-2001. The 3rd respondent determined
contributions payable to the Welfare Fund, by virtue of
Ext.P1 order. Since the petitioners defaulted payment
of amounts due thereunder, recovery steps under the
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was initiated on issuing
Ext.P1 notice. On the basis of request made by the
petitioners, the Government granted installment facility
through Ext.P3 order, dt.20.1.2003. The stipulations
contained therein was for payment of 20% of the
amounts due before 28.2.2003 and to pay the balance in
30 equal monthly installments. According to the
petitioners, the first installment of 20% along with the
collection charges at the rate of 5% was paid as per
W.P.(C).8089/09- -2-
Ext.P4 receipt. It is stated that thereafter the petitioners
had remitted the entire amounts due under Ext.P1 order.
But still the revenue recovery steps continued. Being
aggrieved the 1st petitioner approached this court in WP(C).
No.16980/08. In Ext.P5 judgment, this court directed
consideration and disposal of a representation filed by him
and also directed to furnish him with a copy of the
statement of accounts. Ext.P6 is the copy of statement of
accounts furnished. Complaint was that no proper credit
was given with respect to various payments effected by the
petitioners. Therefore the discrepancies were brought to
the notice of the 3rd respondent. Subsequently another
statement of accounts as per Ext.P7 was issued, in which it
is mentioned that interest to the tune of Rs.4,87,849/- is
outstanding payment. Since Ext.P7 does not reflected all
payments effected, the petitioners have approached the 4th
respondent for getting details regarding payments made on
different dates. Ext.P8 is the details furnished by the 4th
respondent. On the basis of Ext.P8 the 1st petitioner again
W.P.(C).8089/09- -3-
approached the 3rd respondent seeking corrections, and
Ext.P9 is the reply given.
2. The statement of accounts appended to Ext.P9
revealed that payments effected by the petitioners to the
tune of Rs.2,02,695/- was remitted by the 4th respondent to
the 5th respondent Bank on 30.6.2003. But the 5th
respondent Bank had transferred the amount to the credit
of the 3rd respondent, only on 4.11.2006, i.e., after 3=
years. Since the payments were not given credit at the
appropriate time, huge liability of interest and penal
interest had accrued in the account, causing heavy burden
to the petitioners. Grievance of the petitioners is that
inspite of bringing notice of the above facts, the 3rd
respondent is not prepared to rectify the accounts.
According to the petitioners, they have remitted the entire
amounts due, along with 5% collection charges and there is
no outstanding liability. But the 3rd respondent is not
issuing clearance certificate for getting release of the title
deeds under deposit with the 2nd respondent. Since
W.P.(C).8089/09- -4-
representations filed in this regard was not considered, this
writ petition is filed.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent
it is contended that the allegation of the petitioner is not
true. Since the remittances reflected in Ext.P8 had not
been accounted to the credit of the 3rd respondent at the
appropriate dates, there is still arrears and the petitioner
was treated as a defaulter. It is stated that, on
reconciliation of statements, it was realised that the amount
collected by the Tahsildar during the year 2003 was
remitted to the District Co-operative Bank, Mannar Branch
(5th respondent) during 2003 itself. But the 5th respondent
had failed to transfer the amounts to the credit of the
Welfare Fund Board. The credit was effected only after
long lapse, on the basis of specific requests made by the 3rd
respondent.
4. It is evident that, relevant credits regarding
payments effected by the petitioners were given, only with
effect from the date on which the 5th respondent had
W.P.(C).8089/09- -5-
transferred the amounts in favour of the Welfare Fund
Board. According to the 3rd respondent, the default was on
the part of the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent alone
is responsible for not transferring the amounts in favour of
the 3rd respondent. As per the statement maintained by the
3rd respondent, amounts are still outstanding payment from
the petitioners and they were treated as defaulters, is the
contention.
5. In a statement filed by the 4th respondent it is
mentioned that the petitioners have committed default in
payment of installments as allowed by the Government, and
therefore recovery steps were proceeded against. Learned
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of 4th respondent
had brought to my notice that a circular has been issued by
the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector of the Kerala Toddy
Workers Welfare Fund Board, instructing the officers
concerned to open Bank accounts with the District Co-
operative Banks in all districts for remittance of
contributions, and directing to forward monthly statement
W.P.(C).8089/09- -6-
of such remittances to the Head Office.
6. The 5th respondent in their counter affidavit
conceded that the 3rd respondent was maintaining an
account with the Head Office of the Bank since 1.1.1993
onwards. It is also admitted that the 4th respondent had
made various remittances on different dates during the year
2003, totalling to a sum of Rs.57,000/-, in the account of the
3rd respondent. The Branch Manager has transferred those
amounts to the Head Office on the same dates itself. But it
is admitted that the amounts were kept at the Head Office
in a ‘Suspense Account’, since the account of the Welfare
Fund remained closed with effect from 16.11.2002 onwards.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as
revealed from contentions of various parties, it is clear that
remittances made by the petitioners pursuant to the
revenue recovery steps were not given credit at the
appropriate time. It is conceded by the 3rd respondent that
if all the remittances were given credit on the appropriate
dates of payments, the liability of the petitioners would have
W.P.(C).8089/09- -7-
been discharged. The arrears now alleged was only due to
non-crediting of the payments effected by petitioners at the
appropriate time. No default can be attributed against the
petitioners with respect to lack of giving credit to their
payments at the appropriate time. Therefore the petitioners
are entitled to get a discharge with respect to the liability.
Consequently they are entitled for a clearance certificate
and return of the title deeds deposited.
8. If the 3rd respondent Board is suffering any loss
due to the default on the part of, either the 4th respondent
or the 5th respondent in not transmitting the amounts at the
appropriate time, it is for the 3rd respondent to work out
remedies as permissible under law against those who are
responsible. Merely because the 3rd respondent is entitled
to resort to such remedies, the petitioners could not be held
liable and they could not be restrained from getting
clearance certificate and return of title deeds.
9. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition
is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to issue
W.P.(C).8089/09- -8-
clearance certificate to the petitioners facilitating them to
get release of the title deeds from the 2nd respondent. It is
made clear that issuance of clearance certificate in favour
of the petitioners will not affect the rights if any available
under law to the 3rd respondent for proceeding against
respondents 4 and/ or 5, whoever is responsible for the
delay caused in transmitting the amounts remitted by the
petitioners.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb