IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20834 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M.R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PADINJARECHIRA VEETTIL, CHENNANKARI, KAINAKARY SOUTH VILLAGE, KUTTANADU. BY ADVS. MR.K.K.BABU, SMT.N.N.GIRIJA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. MR.KOSHY GEORGE,SC,KTWWFB R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20834/2009 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 14/09/2007. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 14/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OFTHE DOCUMENT DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.6977/03 IN WPC.NO.20277/2003. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.20277/2003 DTD. 22/11/2005. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.509/09 DTD. 5/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ PS. TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.20834 of 2009-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT “CR” 1.The petitioner was a licensee of toddy shops for the year 1999-2000. It is a matter of record that he had no arrears on any count. He had made available a property as security. That is not being released. This is the cause of action for this writ petition. 2.Respondents 2 and 3 plead in their counter affidavit that the petitioner's sons, Binish and Bijesh, are defaulters of certain abkari dues for subsequent years and because they are the sons of the petitioner, they are his “legal heirs” and therefore, the property of the petitioner would also be liable for the arrears attributable to his sons. WPC20834/09 -: 2 :- 3.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4.For one thing, the term “legal heir” is itself a casual and colloquial expression. That should not come from a legally trained person. Heirship is in accordance with law. It connotes legitimacy. There are only heirs. The terms “legal representative” and “heir” are quite often mixed up. This results in the improper use: “legal heir”. Unfortunately, started casually, that is now quite usual! 5.In so far as heirship is concerned, children do not succeed the parent; testamentarily or by intestacy; unless the parent dies. Fortunately for the petitioner, he is alive. The State Government cannot be heard to plead that the petitioner has already left behind heirs or that the property of the petitioner has devolved on his sons even during his lifetime. WPC20834/09 -: 3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that no demand against the petitioner, as projected in the counter affidavit, would survive and it is directed that the document deposited by the petitioner shall be released by the competent respondent on production of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/230909