IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17700 of 2008(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- TILAKAN N, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, AGEMADAVELI HOUSE, CMC -31, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA 3. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. K.M. MOHANDAS, NARAYANA MANGALAM, AMBALAPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADV. SRI. KOSHY GEORGE, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 17700 OF 2008 - F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P3, a notice attaching the immovable properties mentioned therein. The attachment has been effected as part of the recovery proceedings initiated for the realisation of the dues under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that he was not a licensee to be saddled with liability. However, the stand of the respondents is that during 1997-98 the petitioner was a licensee and that final determination order was passed. It is stated that the said order was also served on the petitioner and that he had not filed any appeal or other proceedings against the final determination order. It is stated that since the amount was not paid, recovery proceedings were initiated and that resulted in Ext. P3. 3. If as a matter of fact, after due enquiry the final determination order was passed. If at all the petitioner was W.P.(C) No. 17700 OF 2008 -2- aggrieved, the order ought to have been challenged before the statutory authorities. This was not done by the petitioner and on the other hand he allowed the proceedings to become final. If that be so, the recovery proceedings initiated cannot be faulted. 4. However, having regard to the submissions made, I feel, the petitioner can be given an instalment facility to discharge the liability so that he can also avoid coercive action against his immovable properties. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the amount shown in Ext. P3, in six equal monthly instalments, the first of which will be paid on or before 31.7.2008. Subject to payment as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 will stand deferred. It is also directed that the remaining instalments will be paid by the petitioner before the end of every every succeeding month. It is clarified that in case default is committed in paying the instalments as above, the respondents will be free to continue the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-