IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11673 of 2005(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O. PAZHANISWAMI GOUNDER, MANAL THODU, KOZHIPPATHI, VANNAMADA P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL SRI.DILIP MOHAN SMT.RIPSY PIUS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHIPATHI VILLAGE, KOZHIPATHI CHITTUR. 5. RAJU S/O. PAZHANISWAMI GOUNDER, MANAL THODU, KOZHIPPATHI, VANNAMADA P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. MATHEW VADAKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11673 of 2005(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : A PHOTO COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.08.2004 EXT.P2 : A PHOTO COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 21.12.2004. EXT.P3 : A PHOTO COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND PAZHANISWAMI GOUNDER ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATH, KOZHINJAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATG DATED 10.08.2004, EXT.P4 : A PHOTO COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT NOF LAND DATED 15.03.2005. EXT.P5 : A PHOTO COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 7 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RE SPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2005. EXT.P6 : A PHOTO COPT OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.03.2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 11673 OF 2005 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The steps taken by respondents 1 to 4 to realise the due amount from the 5th respondent, who is the defaulter, having failed to effect necessary contributions under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund, have been sought to be intercepted by the petitioner who is the mother of the 5th respondent, stating that she is residing in the property in question and that she might not be thrown to the streets. 2. When the matter came up for admission before this Court, the coercive steps were intercepted, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of two equal monthly installments, the first of which was to be remitted on or or before 30.04.2005 and the next one on or before 31.05.2005 . It is seen from the proceedings that the petitioner did not comply with the said condition; though the time for effecting the payment was extended by this Court by one week on W.P.(C) No. 11673 OF 2005 2 20.06.2005. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the condition imposed by this Court while granting the interim order was sought to be challenged by the petitioner by filing W.A. No.937 of 2005, but the Division Bench was not pleased to grant any favourable order and interference was declined, however granting some more time. Despite the further time granted as above, the petitioner did not choose to effect any payment, which in turn was brought to the notice of this Court in the course of the proceedings. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default on the part of the petitioner was never wilful or deliberate in any manner and that she is also having individual rights and interests over the property in question, which cannot be defeated by the respondents 1 to 4 in the course of the steps stated as being pursued against the 5th respondent, who was only a co-owner. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the W.P.(C) No. 11673 OF 2005 3 liability sought to be recovered is from the 5th respondent and from nobody else. It is also stated that the property actually belonged to the husband of the petitioner, who was the father of the 5th respondent. On his demise, the property devolved upon the legal heirs, whereby the 5th respondent also got an undivided interest to an extent of 1/7th over the property and improvements situated therein. The steps taken by the respondents 1 to 4 is only in respect of the 1/7th interest belonging to the 5th respondent as stated above and all the rights and interests of other legal heirs including the petitioner are not intended to be touched in any manner . In the above facts and circumstances, nothing further survives to be considered in the Writ Petition, as the pleadings raised and projected are rather wrong and misconceived. More so, the petitioner cannot successfully resist the action being taken against the 5th respondent, though he is her son, particularly when such steps have not been chosen to be challenged by the 5th respondent . In the said circumstances, W.P.(C) No. 11673 OF 2005 4 this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the Writ Petition. No interference is warranted. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk