IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28263 of 2004(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.K. SATHEESAN, PARAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUTTAR MURI, MUTTAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA. 2. TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. P.D. SAMBASIVAN, PUTHUVALIL, CHATHIRTHYAKARI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. P.D. THANKACHAN, PUTHUVALIL, CHATHIRTHYAKARI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. C.V. RAJESH, ASHA SADANAM, KINDANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. A.N. VIVEKANDANDAN, ASHA SADANAM, KINDANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KTWWF BOARD FOR R2 G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON 23/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 SERIES: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICES DT.8.6.2004. P2: COPY OF CHALAN RECEIPTS SHOWING THE REMITTANCES MADE TOWARDS TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.28263 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of Toddy Workers Welfare Fund dues in respect of several toddy shops within the Kuttanadu Range. According to Standing Counsel, petitioner and eight others were joint licencees for the entire 142 toddy shops in the Kuttanadu Range. Since liability is joint and several, recovery can be made from licencees jointly and severally. It is for them to settle their dispute in civil court or elsewhere. Even though petitioner has made four other licencees as respondents, remaining have been left out. Moreover, the agreement among licencees to share the business and management of the respective toddy shops is not produced in court. In the circumstances, there is no scope for this court passing any orders for the purpose of sharing liability among joint licencees. Since liability is joint and several, recovery can be made from petitioner and other licencees. The W.P. is closed leaving freedom to respondents 1 to 3 to proceed for recovery against all the licencees including the petitioner. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms