IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3254 of 2005(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.A. ABRAHAM, EDAYANAL HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., AIKKARANAD NORTH KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN SMT.P.SUMITHRA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFCE, PERUMBAVOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE, AIKKARANAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER CHITTUR RANGE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DIST. 5. P.K. BHASKARAN, PALAKATTUNIRAPPEL (MANACKAKATHIL), THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., ALUVA. 6. M.B. SANTHOSH, S/O. P.K. BHASKARAN, PALAKATTUNIRAPPEL (MANACKAKATHIL) THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., ALUVA. 7. M.B. RANADEVAN, S/O. P.K. BHASKARAN PALAKATTUNIRAPPEL (MANACKAKATHIL) THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., ALUVA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3254/2005/K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM, DATED 1.3.99. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.11.2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3254 of 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of transport fee of toddy at the rate of Rs.1 per litre. The demand is Rs.6,19,020/- payable for the period from 1996- 1997. Petitioner's case is that though he was the licensee of the toddy shop, respondents 5 to 7 were running business. However, petitioner has produced Ext.P2 which is an agreement for management of the toddy shop by respondents 5 to 7. Since petitioner is the licensee and toddy was transported on his behalf, liability is strictly on the petitioner. Agreement among the parties to the contrary is to be enforced only in civil court. Petitioner has no right to challenge the recovery of the amount payable in accordance with the rule by the licensee. The original petition is disposed of devoid of any merit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE csl