IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17168 of 2009(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.P.JOSHY, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, THOTTUPURATH HOUSE, KALAVANKODAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THE INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 4. T.K.PUSHKARAN, S/O.KUNJIKOCHU, THANDEL HOUSE, P.O., PADINJARE KODIKULAM, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU R3 BY ADV. MR.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WELFARE) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.17168 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's case is that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated by the second respondent at the instance of the third respondent for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner in connection with the running of a toddy shop in the Ponnani Range for the period 1999-2000. The case put forth by the petitioner is that, at no point of time, had the petitioner any control over the shop in question; that he was never a licensee of the concerned shop; that the licence was actually given in favour of the 4th respondent who was running the shop and further that at no point of time, had the petitioner ever been served with any notice or final determination order in connection with fixation of the liability. 2. The third respondent has filed a statement rebutting the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner, also producing copies of the postal acknowledgment cards returned from the petitioner at different points of time, in respect of various notices and proceedings served upon him (Annexure R3 W.P.(C) No.17168 OF 2009 2 (a) to R3(d) respectively). The petitioner has chosen to file a reply statement (not a reply affidavit) reiterating the contentions in the Writ Petition and contending that the signature contained in R3(a) to R3(d) postal acknowledgment cards does not belong to him and that the same is fabricated. The learned Counsel places reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court as reported in Joseph Joseph and others vs. State of Kerala and others [(2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 8] to contend that, absolutely no liability could have been fixed upon the petitioner as he was never a 'licensee' of the shop and that there is no material to show that he was a person who was having control over the affairs of the shop so as to come within the purview of Section 2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent has filed a verified petition (I.A. No.8898 of 2009) seeking to accept some additional documents produced as Annexures R3(e) and R3(f). Annexure R3(e) is the 'final determination order' dated 29.12.2000 passed by the third respondent, wherein the actual W.P.(C) No.17168 OF 2009 3 facts and figures have been discussed in detail, before arriving at a finding that the petitioner was equally liable and responsible to satisfy the due amount, along with the licensee by name Pushkaran. The learned Counsel also places reliance on Annexure R3(f), which is a 'statement' signed and given by the petitioner before the determination officer/second respondent, stating that he was having absolutely no connection with the toddy shop in question and that he was not liable to effect any contribution under the Act. The said statement was recorded by the third respondent on 30.06.2000. 4. There is no case for the petitioner that the signature contained in Annexure R3(f) does not belong to him. On the other hand, the signature in Annexure R3(f) very much tallies with the signature in the postal acknowledgment cards produced from the part of the third respondent as Annexures- R3(a) to R3 (d) . This shows that the signature of the petitioner contained in the present Writ Petition as well as in the affidavit filed in support thereof appears to be dissimilar, which persuades this Court to think that a conscious attempt has been made by the W.P.(C) No.17168 OF 2009 4 petitioner to project and contend that the signature contained in Annexures R3(a) to R3(d) postal acknowledgment cards does not belong to him and that the same is fabricated at the hands of the third respondent. This appears to be a matter to be enquired into by an appropriate investigating agency, if necessary steps are taken in this regard by the third respondent. 5. In any view of the matter, there is no case for the petitioner that he is not residing in the address as shown in the postal acknowledgment cards produced as Annexures R3(a) to R3(d), which is same address as given in the present Writ Petition as well and so also in the final determination order. It is also noted that the third respondent has discussed the evidence available on record in paragraph No.3 of the final determination order produced as Annexure-R3 (e), where the statements given by the various employees have been referred to showing that though the actual licensee was the 4th respondent, the concerned toddy shop was being conducted, operated, managed and controlled by none other than the petitioner herein. Section 2(c) W.P.(C) No.17168 OF 2009 5 of the Act defines the term 'employer' as follows: “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.” 6. In the above circumstances, the materials on record would clearly reveal that the petitioner very much satisfies the definition of the term 'employer' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act and as such, there is absolutely no fault on the part of the determination authority, who passed Annexure-R3(e) final determination order, followed by the natural consequences leading to coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act. As it stands so, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed accordingly, with a cost limited to Rs.3,000/-. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk