IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7929 of 2011(M) ---------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN.P.S, S/O.SIVAPRASAD, AGED 38 YEARS, PULICKAL HOUSE, METHALA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPAPRTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR. 4. TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REP. BY THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND, THRISSUR. 6. P.S.UPENDARAN, S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, VELLUR, KOMBATHUKADAVU PO, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO, SC, KTWWF BOARD R6 BY SRI.C.D.DILEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 7929 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE OF ATTACHED MOVABLE PROPERTIES DT. 12-5-2010. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT. 15-12-2010. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DT. 27-1-2011. EXT.P4 : APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 31-3-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.7929 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of Toddy Workers Welfare Fund contributions. Admittedly against Ext.P2 final determination order finding the petitioner as well as another person jointly and severally liable for the contributions, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioner's only contention in this writ petition is that, since the 6th respondent is also liable, the petitioner alone should not be proceeded against for recovery. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 & 5 also as well as the learned Government Pleader. Despite service of notice, the 6th respondent has not W.P.(C)No.7929 of 2011 -2- cared to enter appearance and contest the matter. Insofar as both the petitioner and the 6th respondent are jointly and severally liable, the petitioner cannot now say that the respondents 1 to 5 should first proceed against the 6th respondent also. It is upto the respondents 1 to 5 to proceed against whomever has sufficient assets. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. However I direct the respondents 1 to 5 to see that the 6th respondent is also proceeded against. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/