IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18777 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.P.SEBASTIAN, S/O.PAILY, AGED 64 YEARS, ARANJANI PUTHENPURA, MONIPILLY P.O. ACHIKAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 636. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR SRI.A.S.ANILKUMAR (VANCHIMALA) SRI.C.M.JIHADH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CESS ASSESSING OFFICER (ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER) KOTTAYAM, DISTRICT LABOUR KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 575. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 575. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V ---------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent fixing the liability of the petitioner under the Building and other Construction Worker's Welfare Cess Act, 1996. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition including that the construction was effected by the petitioner in 1993, ie much before the enactment and hence that no liability can be mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner. It is also stated that, prior to issuance of Ext.P1, no proceeding whatsoever was issued to the petitioner at any point of time and this being the position, Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court; submits the learned counsel. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits, with reference to the statement filed on 2.7.2010, that the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition are quite wrong and misconceived. It is asserted in the statement that, before finalisation of the proceedings as per Ext.P5, W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V 2 notice was issued to the petitioner by registered post. Copies of the notices and postal acknowledgment card returned have been produced before this Court as Annexure R1(a) to R1(e), along with the statement. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, if at all aggrieved, has a remedy as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the statute and that the Writ Petition is not maintainable under any circumstances. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the averments were raised with all sense of bonafides; but in view of the specific averments contained in the statement preferred by the respondents, the petitioner does not intend to proceed with the matter any further, even by availing the statutory remedy. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner may be permitted to clear the entire liability by way of reasonable instalments. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability under Ext.P5 by way of 'five' equal monthly instalements, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each; the first of which shall be effected on or before 30th of August, 2010; to be W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V 3 followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. The last instalment will be only for the requisite amount, so as to top up the figure, to clear the remaining liability. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is however made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in clearing the liability as above, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with the coercive steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.18777 of 2010-V 4