IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12055 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINI, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.SALAMMA, PALAKKASSERIL HOUSE, KANJAVALLY (PO), TRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, ANGALIM MOOD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. THE TODDY WORKERS, WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KOZHIKODE, KOYILANDI RANGE, KOZHIKODE. 5. P.G.RAJU, HOUSE NO.7/362, THEKKUM THARA PANCHAYATH, MANALITHARA TALUK, MANAPALLY, TRISSUR. 6. SHINE KUMAR, KARUVELI HOUSE, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 12055 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that the liability imposed by the 4th respondent under the Toddy workers Welfare Fund Act and the Scheme, being jointly upon the petitioner, her husband/6th respondent and also 5th respondent, the maximum liability that could have been fixed and realised from the petitioner is only 1/3 of the total amount and that the authorities are to proceed against the 5th and 6th respondents for realisation of the remaining 1/3 each. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner bid the toddy shops bearing No. 1 to 9 of Koyilandi range for the year 1997-98 and was the licensee. It is the case of the petitioner that she had given 'power of attorney' to the 6th respondent, her husband for running the shop and that it was without her knowledge, that the petitioner's husband entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent for running the shop. Subsequently, the 5th respondent turned to be a defaulter and he did not remit the contribution to the Welfare Fund, which made the 4th respondent to fix the liability on the petitioner as well as on the 5th and 6th respondents together, vide Ext.P1 proceedings. WPC NO.12055/2009 2 3. Though the petitioner challenged Ext.P1 proceedings by filing appeal before the appellate authority, the same was dismissed as evident from Ext.P3 order. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Munsiff's Court, Kollam by filing O.S. No. 406/2006 for a declaration that he is not liable to pay the amount and that the liability shall be exclusively fixed upon the 5th respondent. It is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the WP(C), that the suit happened to be dismissed for default, followed by filing of restoration petition. Subsequently the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1489/2008, whereby, the proposed sale was intercepted as per the judgment dated 06.03.2008 till the disposal of the restoration petition. It has been admitted by the petitioner in the next paragraph of the writ petition that, though the suit was restored, it was dismissed subsequently, by virtue of statutory bar. 4. The admitted or rather undisputed pleadings reveal that the liability to effect payment has become final. It has been observed in Ext.P1 order passed by the 4th respondent - assessing authority and also in Ext.P3 order passed by the appellate authority that the petitioner, her husband - the 6th respondent and also the 5th respondent are very much liable. But that does not mean that the liability has been to be satisfied by concerned persons only to an extent of 1/3 each. The proposition made by the petitioner that she is having the liability only to an extent of 1/3 is very WPC NO.12055/2009 3 much contrary to the facts, figures and law. More so, when the case put forth by the petitioner that she, despite being the 'licensee' who had entrusted running of the shop to her husband by virtue of the 'power of attorney' in this regard was unaware of the arrangement stated as made between her husband and the 5th respondent. Even otherwise running of the toddy shop on the basis of the license issued by the Department is only a 'personal privilege' which cannot be transferred by virtue of the hurdles placed in this regard as per the relevant provisions of statute and the terms of the licence. This being the position, the action pursued by the concerned parties in entrusting the running of the shops to the 5th respondent itself cannot be held as correct or proper. In any view of the matter, since the specific case of the petitioner that her liability has to be restricted to 1/3 of the total due amount is not liable to be accepted as correct or sustainable, no interference is possible. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc