IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29890 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- C.K. VIJAYAN, S/O.KUMARAN, CHERULLIL CHOURIYEDATH HOUSE, PULLOOT VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 664. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN-680 121. 4. PADMAVATHY, W/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 682. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. R2, R3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.S. JAMAL. R1 BY ADV. MR.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHIY, SC, TWWFB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 29890 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9/1/2006 IN WPC.18266/03. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/4/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D5.25507/03 DATED 4/3/2011 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TALUK OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE LAST INSTALLMENT DATED 11/10/2011 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.29890 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 4th respondent were co-licensees of toddy shop of Chalakkudy Range during 1994-1997. Revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of contributions under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund payment of which was defaulted by the licensees. The petitioner's grievance is that, the respondents 1 to 3 & 5 are proceeding against the petitioner alone when the 4th respondent also has assets which can be proceeded against, for recovery of the defaulted arrears. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 judgment, in a similar case this Court has directed to proceed against the co-licensee also. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent also. I am of opinion that, it is just and proper that the respondents 1 to 3 & 5 proceed against all the licensees together W.P.(C)No.29890 of 2011 -2- simultaneously instead of targeting one licensee alone if both licensees have assets. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents 1 to 3 & 5 to proceed against both the petitioner and the 4th respondent simultaneously if both of them have assets which can be proceeded against. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/