IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25030 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. VADAVATHI SHIJITH, NARAYANI NILAYAM, P.O.MAMBARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. E.K.VASUMATHI, D/O.RAMUNNI, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KAVUMBHAGAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. P.K.USHA, W/O.SURENDRAN, PATHIRIYAD, KELALOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. E.K.PRAVEEN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KAVUMBHAGAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. K.A.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, 'MINISHA', KAVUMBHAGAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. VADAVATHI INDIRA, W/O.ASHOKAN, NARAYANI NILAYAM, P.O.MAMBARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. T.M.SURENDRAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PATHIRIYAD, KELALOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (H)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY) TELLICHERRY. 4. THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD SHRI.RENIL ANTO, SC FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.25030 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were former licensees of toddy shops in Tellicherry range. Admittedly, arrears of contributions to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund are due from them. They had not paid the same. They approached the Government for stay of revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the amounts due from them. The Government, purely on the ground of sympathy, granted a stay. In the meanwhile one Sri.Aringath Kelan, a surety for one of the licencees of the range , approached this court by filing O.P.No.6928/2000, in which the petitioners in these writ petition were also parties. In that case, a learned Judge of this Court passed an order directing recovery of the amounts from some of them before proceeding against the said Sri.Aringath Kelan. Sri.Aringath Kelan filed C.O.C.No.941/08 for violation of the directions, which a contention was taken that the Government had granted a stay against recovery of the dues. A learned Judge directed the Labour Secretary to file a counter w.p.c.25030/08 2 affidavit justifying the stay granted by the Government against the recovery of the dues payable to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund. Apparently in view of that order, the learned Government Pleader appears to have informed the Government against the possible adverse orders from this Court in that C.O.C. On that basis by Ext.P4 communication the Government directed the District Collector to proceed with the revenue recovery action withdrawing the stay granted. That is under challenge before me. 2. According to the petitioners, since the Government had granted a stay, that stay could not have been vacated without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. I am of opinion that in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I cannot countenance that contention arising from a dispute as to the liability of the petitioners to pay the amount in the judgment from which Contempt Case No.941/2008 there is specific direction by this Court to recover the amounts. A learned Judge of this Court had also directed the Government to justify the stay. That being so, the Government was constrained to tell this w.p.c.25030/08 3 Court as to on what ground the Government could continue the stay. When admittedly amounts are due, which amounts are to go to the account of the toddy workers in respect of whom only contributions are paid, the Government cannot on its own stay revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of contributions to the fund unless it is in an appeal filed against the assessment for contributions, which is not the case here. By Ext.P4 the Government has only withdrawn a concession granted to the petitioners to which they were not legally entitled to. I do not think that, that can be faulted on merely account of the fact that before passing Ext.P4 order the petitioners were not heard. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the writ petition dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.25030/08 4