IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23494 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.KUMARAN, S/O.PONNAN, KALLUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOTHAKURUSSI, ANANGANADI VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WE FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 23494 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive steps taken against him as per Ext.P5 notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount stated as due under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act. 2. When the matter came for consideration before this Court, the coercive steps were intercepted as per the interim order dated 23.09.2009 and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which is stated as complied with. Subsequently, as per the order dated 21.12.2009, while extending the interim stay, the petitioner was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs.40,000/- within three weeks. The petitioner is now before this Court by filing I.A.1191/2010 seeking for enlargement of time to deposit the said amount of Rs.40,000/- assuring that the said amount will paid within one month. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits, with reference to the contents of the statement filed on behalf of the said respondent, that the challenge raised by the petitioner against the proceedings taken is not at all correct or sustainable and the idea and WP(C) No.23494/2009 2 understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and unfounded. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- within one week that the petitioner might be permitted to discharge the outstanding liability by way of reasonable instalments. After considering the rival submissions, this Court permits the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs.40,000/- within one week and the balance amount shall be cleared by way of ‘three’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of March, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner under Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc