T.Sudheerkumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 20 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4544 of 2009(N)


1. T.SUDHEERKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR)PO KOZHIKODE,

3. KERALA TODDY WORKER'S WELFARE FUND

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.JOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :20/02/2009

 O R D E R
                         K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                  --------------------------------------
                  W.P.C. NO. 4544 OF 2009 N
                  --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 20th February, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus

to the third respondent not to take revenue recovery proceedings

against him and to furnish demand notice to him under the

Revenue Recovery Act in regard to the proposed revenue

recovery. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

The third respondent, the Kerala Toddy Workers’ Welfare

Fund Inspector, made a final determination order making the

petitioner liable. Petitioner states that he has not received it and

he filed a Writ Petition against the revenue recovery

proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner’s deceased father had

conducted toddy shop and his mother filed a Suit and obtained a

Decree. The Writ Petition was disposed of vide Ext.P1.

Petitioner sought legal advice after getting Ext.P1 Judgment and

he filed Appeal. Now, the petitioner states that there are

revenue recovery proceedings against him.

WPC.4544/09 N 2

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

standing counsel appearing for the third respondent and also the

learned Government Pleader.

3. The proceedings are apparently under the Kerala Toddy

Workers’ Welfare Fund Act. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show

that the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging

the proceedings for recovery of arrears of toddy workers welfare

fund, was dismissed by this Court. Dealing with the contention

that the father of the petitioner was the licensee, it was the

argument of the learned standing counsel for the Board that it

was the petitioner who was carrying on the business and final

determination order was issued in his name, and thereafter, the

Court had held that if the petitioner has any grievance against

the final determination order, he has to collect the order and

challenge the same in appeal. Therefore, the mandamus sought

not to take revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner

is clearly in the teeth of Ext.P1 Judgment, wherein also the

prayer was not to take recovery steps against the petitioner. The

WPC.4544/09 N 3

further prayer is to direct the third respondent to issue the

demand notice to the petitioner. Learned standing counsel

points out that already the final determination order was served.

I do not see any merit in either of the prayers of the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, he has challenged it before the

Government. I express no view on the appeal and if the

petitioner has any right in respect of the same, it is for the

petitioner to prosecute the appeal before the Appellate

Authority.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.

// True Copy //

PS to Judge