IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 6950 of 2004(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ UDAYABHANU S/O. PRABHAKARAN, CHINNU MANDIRAM, ERAVIPURAM P.O., LKOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI SMT.BABY JOSE SRI.R.JYOTHIKRISHNAN SMT.K.B.REKHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR (RR), COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. 5. BHASKARAN S/O. KESAVAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE THEKKEVILA CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. R1,3&4 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY R5 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER DT.5.5.1999. P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY PETITIONER AS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF R5 DT.18.10.99. P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT.12.9.2003 ISSUED BY R3. P4: .DO. DT.15.9.2003 .DO. P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER DT.26.11.2003. P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DT.5.1.2004. P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY R5 TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.6950 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of Abkari Workers Welfare Fund. According to the petitioner, petitioner is only a power of attorney holder for the limited purpose of executing certain documents for the 5th respondent who was the licencee. Even though W.P. is pending for the last three years, no counter is seen filed by the second respondent. It is not known whether final adjudication order is issued in the matter. If petitioner was carrying on business, then of course recovery can be made from the petitioner. The W.P. is disposed of directing the second respondent to determine liability after hearing petitioner's objections and after hearing the 5th respondent within three months from now. The interim order of stay will continue for three months and thereafter recovery will be based on fresh orders to be issued by second respondent, if petitioner produces copy of this judgment. However, if petitioner does not produce copy of this judgment and appear before the second respondent with his objections, recovery can be made from the petitioner based on present orders. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms