IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4544 of 2009(N) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.SUDHEERKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.VELAYUDHAN, THERAYIL HOUSE, P.O GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-18. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), P.O KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. KERALA TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, PO KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI K.D.BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 4544 OF 2009 N -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus to the third respondent not to take revenue recovery proceedings against him and to furnish demand notice to him under the Revenue Recovery Act in regard to the proposed revenue recovery. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The third respondent, the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Inspector, made a final determination order making the petitioner liable. Petitioner states that he has not received it and he filed a Writ Petition against the revenue recovery proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner's deceased father had conducted toddy shop and his mother filed a Suit and obtained a Decree. The Writ Petition was disposed of vide Ext.P1. Petitioner sought legal advice after getting Ext.P1 Judgment and he filed Appeal. Now, the petitioner states that there are revenue recovery proceedings against him. WPC.4544/09 N 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The proceedings are apparently under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings for recovery of arrears of toddy workers welfare fund, was dismissed by this Court. Dealing with the contention that the father of the petitioner was the licensee, it was the argument of the learned standing counsel for the Board that it was the petitioner who was carrying on the business and final determination order was issued in his name, and thereafter, the Court had held that if the petitioner has any grievance against the final determination order, he has to collect the order and challenge the same in appeal. Therefore, the mandamus sought not to take revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner is clearly in the teeth of Ext.P1 Judgment, wherein also the prayer was not to take recovery steps against the petitioner. The WPC.4544/09 N 3 further prayer is to direct the third respondent to issue the demand notice to the petitioner. Learned standing counsel points out that already the final determination order was served. I do not see any merit in either of the prayers of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has challenged it before the Government. I express no view on the appeal and if the petitioner has any right in respect of the same, it is for the petitioner to prosecute the appeal before the Appellate Authority. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge