IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30974 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SARADAMANI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARA PILLAI, PRAMEELA MANDIRAM, KARUVELIL P.O., EDAVATTOM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.L.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PKK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------- WP(C) NO. 30974 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 JUDGMENT ----------- The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner with respect to the immovable property is a defaulter in payment of amounts due to the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund. The order of determination issued by the authority under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act was challenged in appeal by one of the partners of the licencee and Ext.P1 is the order issued by the Government in appeal. The appellate authority had remanded the matter for de novo determination of the contributions payable. Grievance of the petitioner is that the attachment effected on the property which belonged to the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, is still continuing and the petitioner as well as other legal heirs are not in a position to deal with the property in any manner. Through Ext.P2 request the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent seeking release of attachment with respect to ¾ of the property, so that the petitioner can effect sale of that extent. It is contended that the WP(C) NO. 30974 OF 2009 2 value of even ¼ of the property will be more than sufficient to pay off the arrears of contribution, if any determined afresh, since the original demand itself was for Rs. 27,408/- + 16,469/- only. 2. It is evident that the property belonged to one of the defaulters. Now the petitioner wants to deal with the property. Admittedly the arrears have become due and the property as such is liable to be proceeded against for realizing the arrears. But the question whether a part of the property can released from attachment pending finalization of fresh proceedings as per the order of remand, is a matter which has to be decided by the 2nd respondent, based on the facts and circumstances as well as on ascertaining value of the property in question. It is also desirable on the part of the 2nd respondent to explore possibilities of releasing attachment of the entire property on the petitioner furnishing adequate security through other forms. 3. However it is for the 2nd respondent to consider all these aspects while disposing Ext.P2 request. Hence, in my opinion, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent WP(C) NO. 30974 OF 2009 3 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing, as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE pkk