IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 698 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21142/2006 Dated 21/11/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- V.K.GANGAHARAN, VELLARAMPARAKKAL PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, OORAMANA KARA, MEMURY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.PAULOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE THAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. P.K.SASI, PALAMKUNNATH HOUSE, MARADI KARA, MARADI P.O., MOVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE,SC,KTWWFB,(TODDY WORKE FOR R.2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 698 OF 2007 =================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The prayers sought in the writ petition are as follows:- a. call for the records connected with the case. b. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P2 as far as it relates to the toddy workers welfare fund dues charged on the petitioner's property for conduct of toddy shop Nos.26 to 48 at Narakkal Range conducted by the 5th respondent and the subsequent sale and Ext.P4 order. c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to return the entire amounts with interest @ 18%, recovered from the petitioner, from the date of recovery, till the date of re-payment. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act on the basis that he is an employer as defined in the Act. The resulted in a final determination order. The final determination order was challenged in OP No.121/83, in which the appellant was the second petitioner. By judgment dated 6th of January, 1983, the original petition was dismissed. Appeal was filed as WA No.58/83, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 10th of April, 1987. WA No.698/07 : 2 : 3. Meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and Ext.P2 is the notice issued under the provisions of the Act. The immovable properties of the appellant were sold in the sale conducted. That sale was confirmed by the District Collector and revision filed before the Government was rejected by Ext.P4 order. It was challenging Exts.P2 and P4, the writ petition was filed. 4. By judgment dated 21/11/2006, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the judgments in OP NO.121/1983 and WA.No.58 of 1983, operate as res judicata against the appellant, and therefore, the writ petition is unsustainable. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the writ appeal is filed. 5. Admittedly, the appellant had approached this Court challenging the final determination order in the Original Petition mentioned above. With the dismissal of O.P and the Writ Appeal, the order and the liability has attained finality against the appellant. If that be so, it is impermissible for the appellant to WA No.698/07 : 3 : resort to subsequent litigation challenging the very same proceedings. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment. Writ appeal is only to be dismissed and we do so. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp