IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6358 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.K. BUILDERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.K. MOHANDAS, S/O.K.K.KUNHIRAMAN,AGED 53 YEARS BUSINESS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PERAVOOR MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM, PERAVOOR P.O. THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SHAJI P.CHALY, SMT.M.M.JASMIN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANATHANA VILLAGE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR. 4. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (COMMISSIONER FOR WORKEMEN'S COMPENSATION) KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 6. K.S. MANI, W/O.V.V. RAVI, VELUSSERRY HOUSE, SOUTH PUTHUVYPE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. THE MANAGER NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, IRUTTY BRANCH KANNUR. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R6 BY BADV. MR.B.RAMACHANDRAN, SMT.NIMISHA ARUN. R7 BY ADV. MR.M.JACOB MURICKAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 6358 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of the recovery proceedings being pursued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in respect of the liability, pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kakkanad, Ernakulam, in WCC.66/2003, despite the fact that the 'exparte order' passed by the Commissioner has already been set aside, on application filed by the petitioner in this regard, as borne by Ext.P4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the basic order is no more, the consequential proceeding by way of RR is not liable to be continued any further. 2. The learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 6th respondent, submits that, absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued to the said respondent (claimant) by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, before W.P.(C).No. 6358 of 2010 2 passing any such orders. The learned counsel also challenges the correctness of the submissions made from the part of the petitioner as to the setting aside of the order. However, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 submits on instruction, that the 'exparte order' has been set aside and that the submission made from the part of the petitioner, in this regard, is correct and sustainable. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent/ insurer submits that, pursuant to the 'exparte order' passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, though the amount due has already been deposited, in view of the subsequent proceedings whereby the 'exparte order' has been set aside by the Commissioner, the amount is not liable to be disbursed. 4. For the purpose of the present writ petition, the only question to be considered is whether there is a valid and sustainable order, to be followed by the recovery steps, which W.P.(C).No. 6358 of 2010 3 can only be answered in the negative. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of the order passed earlier, a portion of the liability had also been mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner herein, over and above the liability fixed upon the insurer. In any view of the matter, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the contentions in this regard. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, that the 'exparte order' passed by the Commissioner has already been set aside, the recovery proceedings being pursued against the petitioner under the RR Act are not correct or sustainable. Accordingly the impugned orders Exts.P1 and P2 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl