IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4282 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.K.THANKACHAN, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, MAMBILATH, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM) RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHASILDAR (R.R), KOTTAYAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. K.D. BABU, SC. R3 & R4 BY BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. P.(C) No. 4282 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 notice. Ext.P1 is a show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to show cause why prosecution proceedings should not be initiated against him. The petitioner was the occupier of certain toddy shops under the Kottayam range during 2000-01. According to the petitioner, the licensee was one Suseela and that, he was an occupier of the toddy shop. He therefore contends that there are no grounds to prosecute him. 2. The Standing Counsel for the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board submits that Ext.P1 is only a notice asking the petitioner to show cause why prosecution proceedings should not be initiated against him. To the said notice, the petitioner has also submitted a reply, Ext.P2 which is still pending consideration before the 1st respondent. Even if prosecution proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner would get ample WP(C) No. 4282 of 2010 -:2:- opportunities to challenge the same and to contest the said proceedings. 3. Ext.P1 is only a show cause notice for which the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P2 reply. The petitioner has rushed to this Court without waiting for the authority to take a final decision in the matter. 4. I also notice that the action contemplated is only to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner. Even if such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner would get a chance to contest the same. Other remedies for challenging the said proceedings also are available to the petitioner. Though the petitioner contends that the proceedings are time barred, it is not necessary to consider the said aspect at this stage. The petitioner can very well raise the question of time bar also if and when prosecution proceedings are initiated against him. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the show cause notice, Ext.P1. Suffice it to direct the 1st respondent to finalise the proceedings in accordance with WP(C) No. 4282 of 2010 -:3:- law after considering the reply, Ext.P2, submitted by the petitioner also. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb