IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19695 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.P.BABU, NALPATHIL HOUSE, KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR. T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE THASILDAR, KUTTANAD. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND, ALAPPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI .KOSHY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19695 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court, challenging the steps taken by the respondents under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realization of the amount stated as due from the petitioner as arrears payable to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund for the years 1994 - '95 to 2001 - '02. The case of the petitioner is that, he was never a licensee in respect of the shops in question and that the petitioner came to know about the assessment orders only recently, which made him to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, particularly since he could not avail any statutory remedy challenging the assessment orders, for not having served with copies of the assessment orders. 2. The term 'employer' is defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act, which is extracted as given below. 2 (c) “employer” means any person who employs , whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees and includes any person who has a licence for the manufacture (distribution, storage or sale) of toddy under the Abkari Act for the time being in force. 3. The crucial question to be considered is, whether the petitioner was having 'control or supervision' over the shops in question. The WP (C) No. 19695 of 2009 : 2 : second respondent has filed a statement, asserting that the petitioner was having control over the shops and that the assessment orders passed are perfectly in conformity with the stipulations under the Statute and also on the basis of the available evidence on record. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, the petitioner was assessed for the dues in respect of the toddy shops bearing Nos. 105 to 108 of the Kuttanad range for the year 1994 - '95, toddy shops bearing Nos. 97 to 100, 105 to 108 of the same range in the year 1995 - '96 and in respect of toddy shops bearing Nos. 105 to 108 and 110 for the year 1997 - '98. That apart, the shops bearing Nos. 109 to 111 were subjected to the assessment at the hands of the petitioner in the year 1998 - '99, shops bearing Nos. 105 to 108 and 109 to 112 for the year 1999 - 2000 and shops bearing Nos. 109 to 112 for the year 2000 - 2001 as well. 5. The second respondent has produced copies of the relevant assessment orders as well as the postal acknowledgment cards returned from the petitioner, on serving the said assessment orders, as Ext.R2 (a) to R2 (f). Going by the materials on record, it is explicitly clear that the petitioner was served with the assessment orders then and there and that the contentions raised to the contrary are devoid of any merit or bonafides. Equally wrong and unsustainable is the contention that the petitioner could not avail any statutory remedy for WP (C) No. 19695 of 2009 : 3 : non service of the concerned assessment orders as the petitioner was very much served with the same as revealed from the postal acknowledgment cards returned. 6. True that the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in response to the statement filed by the second respondent, but nothing is mentioned therein as to the turn of events brought to light from the part of the second respondent, particularly with regard to the passing of the assessment orders and also as to the service of the same. The only contention now put forth is that, the petitioner cannot be regarded as an 'employer' and that the quantification is not correct or proper, which fact adjudication is not liable to be entertained in a Writ Petition. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, absolutely no interference is called for and if the petitioner is aggrieved of the assessment orders passed by the second respondent, the remedy lies elsewhere. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd