IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5933 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.K.RAJAPPAN, NELLITHANATHU, MOONNILAVU.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION @ DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 3. SASIKUMAR, S/O.SAHADEVAN, VACKATTUKULAM, PULLENCHATHANNOOR.P.O, KUNISSERY, ALATHOOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MOONILAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1, R4 AND R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. MR. K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P. (C) 21968 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) Nos. 5933 of 2010 & 21968 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner in both these cases is one and same. Both the cases relate to the common cause of action and hence are dealt with together. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved of Ext. P2 assessment order fixing liability upon the petitioner under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, preferred Ext. P3 appeal as early as on 5.6.2001 which was pending consideration before the first respondent. Since the respondents initiated the recovery steps invoking the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing O.P. 22201 of 2001, which led to Ext. P6 judgment on 3.7.2001, whereby the coercive proceedings were intercepted, directing the appellate authority to consider and finalize appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon. The case of the petitioner as projected in W.P.(C) 5933 of 2010 (last sentence of paragraph 2) is that, in spite of the lapse of several years, no notice of hearing or order on Ext.P3 appeal has been served to the petitioner so far, and that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court, because of the threat made by the Revenue authorties. W.P. (C) Nos. 5933 & 21968 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit rebutting the allegations and averments raised by the petitioner also producing a copy of the order dated 23.10.2001 passed by the appellate authority in Ext.P3 appeal, as Ext. R2(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no such order was ever communicated to the petitioner. In the said circumstance, the petitioner chose to challenge said order as well, by filing W.P. (C) 21968 of 2010 and has filed a memo in the former case i.e. W.P(C) 5933 of 2010, seeking for permission of this Court to withdraw the said Writ Petition in view of the subsequent Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority in Ext. P3 appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent with reference to the observation in Ext. R2 (a) order passed by the first respondent/State in Ext. P3 appeal submits that, pursuant to Ext. P6 judgment passed by this Court in O.P. 22201 of 2001, the first respondent/appellate authority issued notice to the appellant/petitioner and on receipt of the said notice, the appellant/petitioner, along with the counsel appeared before the appellate authority. It was after hearing both the sides including the Welfare Fund Inspector and taking note of the rival contentions raised, that the appellate authority passed Ext. R2 (a) order as early as on 23.10.2001. This being the position, the W.P. (C) Nos. 5933 & 21968 of 2010 : 3 : averments of the petitioner that, no notice was issued by the appellate authority in the appeal and not order was passed or communicated to the petitioner have no merits or bonafides. 5. Going by the facts and figures, it is evident that Ext. R2(a) order passed by the first respondent was much after issuance of the notice to the petitioner and the petitioner entered appearance along with the counsel before the proceedings were finalized. From the above, it is obvious that the petitioner has approached this Court raising a submission quite contrary to the actual facts, by filing W.P. (C) 5933 of 2010. Finally, on confronting with the factual position, by the first respondent and producing the relevant order, the petitioner preferred subsequent Writ Petition simultaneously filing a 'memo' stating that W.P (C) 5933 of 2010 is 'not pressed'. 6. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the merits of the case stand covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Joseph Joseph Vs. State of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT 827 (SC)] . This Court does not propose to go into the dictum therein, for the obvious reason that, the impugned order was passed as early as on 23.10.2001, after hearing the petitioner and that no interference is warranted. That apart, the petitioner chose to contend that no notice of hearing was issued pursuant to Ext P6 W.P. (C) Nos. 5933 & 21968 of 2010 : 4 : judgment and no order was passed, which stands proved to the contrary.. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the course and conduct pursued by the the petitioner cannot but be deprecated and no interference is warranted in both the cases. The Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed with a total cost Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd