IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34546 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LEELA, W/O. CHANDRAMOHAN, DHARMAKUDI, VADAKKEVILA P.O., MANAKKAD, KOLLAM-10. BY ADV. SRI.MANZOOR ALI K.A RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR OFFICE, KOLLAM- 691 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM- 691 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOLLAM- 691 001. 5. BHADRAKUMAR, PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM- 691 016. 6. SUNIL KUMAR, KANNIRAMVILA VEEDU, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM- 691 016. ADV. SRI. RENIL ANTO - SC SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN - GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34546 of 2010(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF LICENSE NO.179/97-98 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 31.3.1997. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.11.1999 OF RS.10,41,756/- EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 30/10/2002. EXT.P4: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R3 NO.R9-63276/98 DTD 26-3-1999. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 28.9.2010 ISSUED BY R4. EXT.P7: COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 24.1.2003 EVIDENCING PAYMENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7(a): COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 30.3.99 EVIDENCING PAYMENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7(b): COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 23.11.2000 EVIDENCING PAYMENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7(c): COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 16.6.1997 EVIDENCING PAYMENT BY THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34546 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a joint licencee along with respondents 5 and 6 of twenty eight toddy shops for the year 1997-1998. The licencees committed default in payment of contributions under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated as early as in 1999. The petitioner and the 6th respondent approached the District Collector. The District Collector, by Ext.P4 order, directed that “in the interest of collection of revenue before March 1999, parties are allowed to remit 1/3rd share each, if the money is remitted before 30-3- 1999”. In that, the District Collector had specifically referred to the fact that the parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the arrears. The petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 challenged the same before this Court and this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment upholding Ext.P4 order. The petitioner paid part of her 1/3rd share. Now proceedings are initiated for recovery of the entire W.P.(C)No.34546/10 2 amount from her, which are still in arrears insofar as the others also have not paid the amount. The petitioner challenges the same on the ground that the petitioner is liable only to 1/3rd share of the dues and the balance is liable to be paid by the other two licencees. 2. This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board. They would contend that as joint licencees, the liability to pay contributions under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act is joint and several and it is open to respondents 1 to 4 to recover the entire amount from the licencees jointly or severally. It is pointed out that the arrears are due for the last 11 years and by some process or other, the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 have succeeded in avoiding payment of the arrears and that is why coercive proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the balance amount due. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 have come to W.P.(C)No.34546/10 3 Ext.P2 agreement to pay off the arrears proportionate to their shares and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the balance amount of her 1/3rd share of the dues, after deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are joint licencees. Therefore, in respect of the licence, their liability is joint and several. Simply because the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 had come to an agreement to pay dues proportionately that is not binding on the Government in any manner whatsoever. In fact by Ext.P4 order of the District Collector himself has observed that the liability is joint and several. But, the District Collector permitted the parties to pay 1/3rd of the share each only in the interest of collection of revenue before March 1999 in the solemn hope that at least by that process the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 may pay off the entire arrears before March 1999. But, even in that the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 hoodwinked the District Collector by not paying the amount. I am surprised that the W.P.(C)No.34546/10 4 revenue authorities have not taken appropriate steps at the appropriate time to recover the entire amount. That would certainly give rise to a suspicion that the revenue authorities are colluding with the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. But, I am restraining myself from entering any finding in respect thereof. But, the revenue authorities shall bear in mind that it is their cardinal duty to recover the dues of the Government, as expeditiously as possible. For more than 12 years, the dues in this case are outstanding and it is surprising that the revenue authorities with all the machinery of the State at their disposal were not able to recover the amount from the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the arrears and the petitioner cannot take the stand that she is liable only for 1/3rd of the amount. At the same time, respondents 1 to 4 shall proceed against the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 simultaneously against all of them and their properties. This W.P.(C)No.34546/10 5 shall be done and concluded, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and report to this Court within another two weeks therefrom. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Post on 12.12.2011 for report. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.34546/10 6 W.P.(C)No.34546/10 7