IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17532 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BABU P.S., S/O.SUBRAMONIAN, PARAPPULLY HOUSE, MANAKKAPPADI DESOM, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.MUMTAZ SHUMSUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, OFFICE OF THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 00`1. R1 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE,SC,KTWWFB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17532/2011 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE SHOP NO.17/10-11. P2: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE SHOP NO.18/10-11. P3: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE SHOP NO.19/10-11. P4: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE SHOP NO.20/10-11. P5: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE SHOP NO.21/10-11. P6: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE SHOP NO.22/10-11. P7: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE SHOP NO.23/10-11. P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DTD.13/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17532 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed mainly challenging Ext.P8 notice dated 3.5.2011 issued by the first respondent demanding payment of the sum of Rs.4,14,581/- together with interest. 2. Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner, who was the licencee of toddy shops 17 to 23 of Ernakulam range during the period 2010-2011 did not remit the advance contribution in time and therefore Ext.P8 notice was issued in terms of section 8A of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act. The learned counsel submitted that as the first respondent is entitled to demand payment of the advance contribution, which the petitioner failed to remit, the challenge to Ext.P8 is misconceived and without merit. 3. Faced with that situation, Smt.Mumtaz Shumsuddin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for an opportunity to remit the amount due in instalments. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent did not seriously oppose the said request except to state that if the petitioner wishes to participate in the auction for the next year, the petitioner will have to deposit 50% of the amount demanded to obtain a clearance certificate. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to pay the amount due in instalments. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the WPC No.17532/2011 2 petitioner will pay 50% of the amount demanded within two weeks and the balance in four equal monthly instalments. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (i) The petitioner shall within two weeks form today deposit with the first respondent 50% of the principal amount demanded in Ext.P8 notice. (ii) Upon such payment being made, the first respondent shall issue a clearance certificate in terms of rule 5 of the Kerala Abkari Shops and Disposal Rules, 2002. (iii) The petitioner shall pay the balance amount together with interest in four equal monthly instalments. The first of such instalments shall be paid on or before 16.8.2011 and the remaining instalments on the 16th of every succeeding English calendar month. If the 16th of any month happens to be a holiday, payment shall be made on the next working day. (iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner does not remit 50% of the amount demanded within two weeks, the clearance certificate need not be issued and if he commits default in remitting any two consecutive instalments including the first instalment of 50%, it will be open to the first respondent to recover the amount due from the petitioner in lump. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps