IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1916 of 2011 --------------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WPC 27898/2011 ................ APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- S.VASUDEVAN, S/O.SANTHARAM, PROPRIETOR, M/S.V.M.S.ENTERPRISES NO.67, (OLD NO.27), BURKIT ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-400 017. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU SMT.H.ANJALIDEVI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1916 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The issue is with regard to the declaration of the respondent Company as 'relief undertaking' under the relevant provisions of Kerala Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1961, whereby some protection has been given with regard to the realisation of the amounts due from the respondent Company to the creditors. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ appeal shows that, the appellant was eligible to obtain some amount from the respondent Company by way of decree passed by competent Civil Court. Despite filing the execution petition and other incidental proceedings, the same was not properly dealt with by the concerned Execution Court, which made the appellant to approach this Court by filing O.P.(C) No.1526 of 2011, which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment dated W.A. No. 1916 of 2011 -:2:- 17.08.2011 observing that, the relief sought for by the writ petitioner under Article 227 could not have been entertained for the obvious reason that company has already been declared as a 'relief undertaking' under the relevant provisions of Statute. In the said circumstance, it was made clear that the disposal of the writ petition without interference would be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge validity of the notification as provided under the relevant provisions of law. 3. It was in the said circumstance that the petitioner/ appellant sought to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.27898 of 2011, challenging the notification produced as Ext.P8. The admitted case of the appellant/writ petitioner was that, the respondent Company was notified as a 'relief undertaking' much earlier and that, it was being renewed every year before the expiry of the term originally stipulated. The reliance placed on by the writ petitioner was going by the contents of Ext.P9 paper report published in the concerned newspaper dated 29.11.2010, there was some admissions on the part of the respondent Company that it was W.A. No. 1916 of 2011 -:3:- undertaking various developmental measures and that the Company was running on profit. No material was produced before the learned Single Judge and in the said circumstance, the learned Single Judge observed that, there was no sufficient material to arrive at a positive finding so as to take the respondent Company outside the purview of the relief undertaking under the notification. Accordingly, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed observing that there was no illegality in Ext.P8 notification. This forms the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.P9 Press Notification itself is sufficient proof so as to arrive at a positive finding that the Company is running on profit. The very purpose of the notification and the mandate under the Statute while giving the concession as provided therein was to save the very execution of any liability owed by the Company to the creditors for a prescribed period. It was mainly to save the workers, lest the very existence of the Company should be in peril. Since the company is stated to be running on profit as W.A. No. 1916 of 2011 -:4:- revealed from Ext.P9, the Company can no more be treated as a relief undertaking and as such Ext.P8 notification is liable to be intercepted, as per the submission of the learned counsel. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel, Sri.B.Sajeev Kumar, appearing for the respondent Company and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of other respondents. 6. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the sole reliance is placed on Ext.P9 paper report which is not liable to be treated as valid document to arrive at a finding that the Company is running on profit. No Balance Sheet or such other legally acceptable documents has ever been produced before this Court even in the appeal. That apart, what was the position of the Company when Ext.P8 notification was issued on 14.02.2011 is also not discernible. In other words, if the Company is running on profit, subsequently, even going by the version of the appellant, or by the decision taken by the respondent Government by virtue of the power conferred under the Statute to declare an undertaking as a relief undertaking even in respect of a Company which is not at loss is to be ascertained with W.A. No. 1916 of 2011 -:5:- reference to the actual facts and figures. To say the least, nothing is produced before this Court to arrive at any such inference. The challenge raised by the appellant against the said notification being only with reference to Ext.P9 and further, since there is no challenge with regard to the power or jurisdiction or competence of the Government to have issued the notification under the Statute, we find that the finding and reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is perfectly within the four walls of law. No interference is warranted. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb