IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 25472 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.AMBI, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHIRAYIL, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), VAIKOM. 4. M.N.VELAYUDHAN, UMBAKATTU VEEDU, ARPOOKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM (OCCUPIER OF T.S.NOS.28,29) 5. K.K.KARUNAKARAN, KUNNAKKATTU VEEDU, PARIYARAM P.O., PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.(OCCUPIER OF T.S.NO.55) 6. P.K.PADMANABHAN, VANCHIPURACKAL, MANJOOR VILLAGE, MEMURI KARA, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (OCCUPIER OF T.S.NO.23). 7. THANKACHAN, VIRUTHIKULANGARA VEEDU, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, THIRUNAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. (OCCUPIER OF T.S.NO.47). 8. P.S.SADASIVAN, NEDIYAKULATHIL VEEDU, KUMARAKOM P.O., KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. (OCCUPIER OF T.S NO.12,13). 9. BERIL, ARRACKAL VEEDU, PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, NATTAKOM, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. WP(C) 25472/07 -2- (OCCUPIER OF T.S.NO.30,31). 10. M.V.REMESAN, MAMBALATHU VEEDU, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KODIMATHA KARA, CHANDAKKADAVU, KOTTAYAM (OCCUPIER OF T.S.NO.24). 11. M.S.SAJIKUMAR, MAMBALATHU VEEDU, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KODIMATHA KARA, CHANDAKKADAVU, KOTTAYAM. (OCCUPIER OF T.SNO.25,26) 12. P.V.PRASANNAN, KALLACHERIL VEEDU, KUMARAKOM.P.O., KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.(OCCUPIER OF T.S.NO.14,15,16) 13. SUDARMA SADASIVAN, W/O.SADASIVAN, KATTATHARA VEEDU, THIRUVARPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM. (OCCUPIER OF T.S.NO.45). BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 25472 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 4, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 to P7 and Exts.P9 to P18. Though in the prayer portion, the petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P1 to P7, final determination orders passed by the authority under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act , when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he is not seeking to quash the said orders and confines his prayer for quashing Exts.P9 to P18 proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount found to be due in terms of Exts.P1 to P7. WP(C) 25472/07 Page numbers 2. The contention that is raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is only one of the licencees and that respondens 4 to 13 are co-licencees. According to the learned counsel, the liability being joint and several, simultaneous revenue recovery proceedings should be initiated against the others as well. Counsel submits that the petitioner is discriminated in the matter of recovery proceedings and on that ground seeks to quash Exts.P9 to P18. 2. A statement, a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed by the respondents. From this what is sought to be established is that amount is in default and that steps are being taken against all the defaulters. The details of the steps that are taken including initiation of proceedings under sec.65 of the Revenue Recovery Act have been explained by the respondents in the affidavits that have been filed in the writ petition. Accordingly, in view of the steps that have been taken against all the licencees, petitioner can have no grievance and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. Petitioner seems to think that he, being only a co-licencee, is liable to make good only a portion of the liability. In my view WP(C) 25472/07 Page numbers petitioner is incorrect in this basic assumption. It is admitted by the petitioner that he is one of the licencees and the liability is also joint and several. If, however, several defaulters are available with liability joint and several, it is always open to the authorities to proceed against all of them or a few of them depending upon the availability of resources. In this case, as can be seen from the affidavits, steps have been taken against all the defaulters and in the counter affidavit dated 3.1.2007 it is stated that revenue recovery steps have been taken against all of them intensively. In view of this I have no reason to interfere with Exts.P9 to P17, but I need only record the statement that revenue recovery proceedings shall be continued against all of them. The writ petition is disposed of recording the above submission. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-