IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7825 of 2008(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- OMANA AMMA, SANKARAMANGALATHU VEEDU, KAKKAKOTTOOR MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K. SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7825 OF 2008 F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the challenge is against Ext. P1. It is stated by the petitioner that towards the dues under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme for the year 1997-98 demand was made by Ext. P1 and that the same was paid by Ext. P2. It is stated that again, for realising the liability under Ext. P1, revenue recovery is being pursued by Ext. P5. Petitioner would submit that since the debt is satisfied by payment as per Ext. P4, there is absolutely no justification for continuing the revenue recovery proceedings. 2. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, on instructions, submits that the demand made by Ext. P1 was for advance contribution and that subsequently, final determination order was passed on 31.10.2000. It is pointed out that in terms of the final determination order, the total amount due from the petitioner was Rs.3,90,178/- and that the payment made W.P.(C) No. 7825 OF 2008 -2- on the earlier occasion was only Rs.2,22,468/-. According to the counsel, it is for realising the differential amount that the present proceedings have been initiated by Ext. P5. 3. It was stated by the Standing Counsel that the payment made was advance contribution, even if the said demand was satisfied by the petitioner, that does not result in exoneration of liabilities. Therefore recovery by Ext. P5 cannot be faulted. Even otherwise, petitioner has no case that any appeal was filed against the final determination order passed on 31.10.2000. In these circumstances, I cannot find fault with the respondents in having issued Ext. P5. Therefore, the challenge raised in this writ petition is only to be repelled and I do so. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks an instalment facility to discharge the debt payable under Ext. P5. I heard counsel for the respondents also on this. 5. Having regard to the submissions that are made I dispose of this writ petition directing that the amount due as per Ext. P5 will be permitted to be paid by the petitioner in 6 equal monthly instalments, the first of which will be payable in the first week of April, 2008 and the subsequent instalments will be payable in the W.P.(C) No. 7825 OF 2008 -3- first week of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P5 will stand deferred. In case default is committed in paying any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to continue the revenue recovery proceedings that they have already initiated. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-