IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 5891 of 2006(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.G. MOHANDAS, NAMBICHIRAKKALAYIL, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TODDY WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM. 4. ITTAKKU PAILY, KIZHAKKUMCHERRY, NADUVILA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 5891/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. G1-8931/2000 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) VAIKOM DATED 15.12.2000. EXHIBIT P2 : RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM DATED 28.1.2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5891 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of toddy workers welfare fund contributions due in respect of toddy shop No.30 of Vaikom range for the year 1984-85. Even though petitioner is denying liability, it is seen from the counter affidavit that petitioner is liable along with 4th respondent. Petitioner has also made part payment in recovery proceedings and under interim orders of this Court. Learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submitted that petitioner was carrying on business and therefore, he is liable along with the licencee, who is 4th respondent. In any case, I do not think there is any justification for this Court to interfere with the final determination order because there is statutory remedy by way of appeal against it available to petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving freedom to petitioner to collect the final determination order and file appeal if there is any grievance. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg