IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26269 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LATHEEFA BEEVI, LATHEEFA TILES DEPOT, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM COMMITTEE, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, VANCHIYUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEDUMANGAD-695 541. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is running a business concern dealing in building materials, situated at Market Junction, Nedumangad. According to the petitioner she has got three permanent registered workers for doing the loading and unloading works in connection with her business activities, for whom identity cards as evidenced from Exts.P1 to P3 were issued by the authority concerned, under the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. The case of the petitioner is that since she has got three attached workers, she is not liable to be registered under the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme formulated under the above said Act. However, the petitioner received Ext.P4 notice issued by the 1st respondent demanding registration under the Scheme, on payment of the required fee as well as penalty, for the period from 1.4.1991 to 30.7.2008. It is W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G 2 stated that on receipt of Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply as per Ext.P5, narrating the above contentions. The complaint of the petitioner is that without considering the reply submitted, revenue recovery steps were initiated at the behest of the 1st respondent, on issuing Exts.P6 and P7 notices under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Hence the petitioner is challenging the recovery steps initiated. 2. In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is stated that as per paragraph 7 of the Scheme, every employer who engages and employs head load workers in an establishment, is bound to register their names with the local committee constituted within a period of 30 days from the date of commencement of the functional operation of the scheme, in the area in question. Therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner and other establishments requiring them to register under the Scheme. It is further stated that as per paragraph 7(2) of the Scheme, if there is failure on the part of the employer for taking registration, W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G 3 the same will attract penalty. According to the 1st respondent, the revenue recovery steps was initiated since the petitioner has not responded to Ext.P4 notice. 3. From the facts and circumstances as narrated above and considering the rival submissions, it is evident that the contentions raised by the petitioner that she is not liable to be registered under the Scheme, was not seen considered by the 1st respondent. It is evident that the recovery steps were initiated before the petitioner could file objections, as evidenced from Ext.P5. Whether the petitioner is at an obligation to take registration, is a matter which need be considered, at the first instance, by the 1st respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that a remand of the matter for fresh consideration by the 1st respondent, will serve ends of justice. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 objections submitted by the petitioner, after affording her an opportunity of hearing, and to take a decision as to whether W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G 4 the petitioner is liable for taking registration and as to whether she can be imposed with penalty for not taking registration within the appropriate time. 5. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab