IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34384 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.N.PADMINI, W/O S.SASIDHARAN, "AISWARYA", DECENT JUNCTION, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 5. S.MOHANDAS, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O THE LATE SIVA RAMAN, "THYAGABHAVAN", PATTATHANAM.P.O, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34384 OF 2008 R -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Complaint of the petitioner is against Exts.P1 to P3. Exts.P1 to P3 are recovery proceedings under Sections 7, 34 and 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Contention of the petitioner is that a perusal of Exts.P1 to P3 would show that they are in relation to Hema Industries and the fifth respondent is the Proprietor thereof. Petitioner has no connection, it is stated. Learned Government Pleader points out that, on the other hand, actually there were proceedings, one under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the other under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submit that the petitioner has filed vakalath and she did not contest the matter. The Writ Petition does not show that these facts are disclosed. He also submits that the copy of the order will be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to resort to such remedies as may be available to the petitioner. Without prejudice to such WPC.34384/08 R 2 remedies as the petitioner may have in law, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/= (Rupees Two Thousand) for the reason that the petitioner has suppressed that there were proceedings against her wherein she had filed vakalath. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge