P. V. Prasannan v. Welfare Fund Inspector, Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board; Thasildar (RR), Kottayam; District Collector, Kottayam; Manager, Federal Bank, Puthuppally Branch, Kottayam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/23RD JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 594 of 2014 (Y)** **--------------------------** **PETITIONER:** ## **-------------------** **P.V.PRASANNAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KALLACHERRY, KUMMARAKOM EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.MURUKESH REGHU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------------** ## **1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,** **KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.** **2. THE TAHSILDAR (R R), KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.** ## **3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,** ## **KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.** ## **4. THE MANAGER,** **FEDERAL BANK, PUTHUPPALLY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM - 686 011.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WP(C).No. 594 of 2014 (Y)** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **---------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.12.2012 ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 20.07.2012 BY 1ST RESPONDENT FILLED IN WP(C) 14198/12.** **EXHIBIT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.08.2012 IN I.A.NO.11342/2012 IN WP(C) 14918/12.** **EXHIBIT P4 : A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2012 IN WP(C) 14918/12.** **EXHIBIT P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.K1/KTM/14-16/2000-01/6527 DATED 01.01.2013.** **EXHIBIT P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.2013/1097/5/700 DATED 15.04.2013 FOR RECOVERY.** **EXHIBIT P7 : A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.2013/1097/5/700 DATED 15.04.2013 FOR ATTACHMENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 : A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 02.06.2013 AGAINST EXHIBIT P6 NOTICE.** **EXHIBIT P9 : A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2013 IN WP(C) 6826/2013.** **EXHIBIT P10 : A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C5-1097/2013 DATED 26.07.2013 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P11 : A TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 04.11.2013 IN WP(C) NO.19665/2013.** **EXHIBIT P12 : A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C5-1097/2013 DATED 26.12.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------------------------** **N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 594 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against his property, allegedly for recovery of dues under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969. Admittedly, the petitioner and twelve others were licensees of Toddy shop members 1 to 56 of Kottayam Range, during the year 2000-2001. The petitioner was the occupant, who was managing T.S. Nos. 14, 15 and 16. Determination orders were passed under the Act and Revenue Recovery proceedings were taken. Though the liability of the licensees to pay contributions under the Act was joint and several, the recovery proceedings were concluded by apportioning the dues, to each of the licensees, in occupation of the respective shops; who individually satisfied it. So much is evident from Ext.P1. Hence, though the liability was joint and several, presumably on the licensees coming forward to settle their individual dues, such a procedure was WPC.594/2014 : 2 : resorted to by the Revenue Recovery authority. The RR proceedings initiated, stood satisfied and as is noticed in Ext.P1, the files stood closed. 2. Subsequently, on the petitioner seeking for lifting of attachment; by the revenue recovery authorities, a clearance certificate from the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board was insisted. Petitioner was before the authority under the Act and he was informed that there are still dues pending for the assessment year 2000-2001, with respect to the shops which were occupied and conducted by him. Clearance certificate was declined and hence the petitioner was before this Court in W.P(C) 14918/2012. In the said writ petition, a statement was filed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Welfare Fund Board; wherein it was claimed that there is an amount of Rs.1,42,979/- with future interest @18% remaining due and payable towards contribution under the Act, with effect from 01.11.2003. 3. The petitioner then filed an interim WPC.594/2014 : 3 : application, for issuance of clearance certificate and the same was allowed on condition of furnishing Bank guarantee for the amount computed by the Welfare Fund Inspector, by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner did furnish such bank guarantee and obtained release of the property. Subsequently, writ petition itself was disposed of by judgment dated 27.11.2012 produced herein as Ext.P4. In Ext.P4, the Bank guarantee already furnished, was directed to be kept current and the Welfare Fund Board was directed to reconcile its accounts and either realise the amounts due from the bank guarantee furnished or to return it, if no amount is found due. It is to be noticed that the specific contention in the statement of the Board was with respect to an amount of Rs.1,42,979/- with interest due thereon. The directions in Ext.P4 is only for realisation of that amount with interest from the Bank guarantee furnished, if the same is found to be actually due. It needs emphasis that the demand made by the Board was not adjudicated upon by this WPC.594/2014 : 4 : Court and cannot be said to have got the stamp of approval of this Court. Mere reconciliation of accounts was directed and the petitioner could definitely challenge the demand. 4. A reconciliation, as directed, was apparently carried out by the Welfare fund Inspector, which concluded in Ext.P5. Ext.P5 found an amount of Rs.1,50,522/- due from the petitioner with interest thereon, for the year 2000-2001 with respect to T.S Nos. 14 to 16 of the Kottayam Range. Ext.P5 also found that, this demand was after deducting an amount of Rs.1,15,598/-(to be correctly read as 1,16,598/-) already recovered as per Ext.P1. A demand notice, under the RR Act, was also issued as per Ext.P6. The petitioner filed objection to the demand notice and approached this Court, wherein this Court directed the Tahsildar, by Ext.P9 judgment to consider the objections of the petitioner. The consideration made as directed in Ext.P9, by Ext.P10 was found fault with by this Court as per WPC.594/2014 : 5 : Ext.P11, since there was no adjudication on merits. A further reconsideration ordered, concluded in Ext.P12, which is assailed herein. 5. It was the question of limitation as also the satisfaction of the revenue recovery proceedings initiated, that was specifically raised in objection of the notice. The petitioner contended that the proceedings now taken, for recovery of contributions of 2000-2001 is barred by limitation. The petitioner also took an additional ground that in fact, the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated for the said year, of the contributions due under the Act, against all the licensees stood closed as per Ext.P1. None of these seems to have been considered in Ext.P12. In Ext.P12 the authority relied upon **2009(1) KLT 410 Inspector Toddy Welfare Fund Board v. Vijayan** ; wherein a Division Bench of this Court found that the contributions due under the Welfare Fund Act, having been deemed to be "public revenue due"; 30 years would be available for WPC.594/2014 : 6 : recovery; deeming the same to be "arrears due on land revenue". On that premise, the ground of limitation was negatived. 6. But, however, there was no consideration with respect to the exact amounts due or the aspect of satisfaction which was pointedly raised by the petitioner. In view of the inconsistency regarding the exact amounts pending as dues, which is evident from the documents produced in the writ petition; this Court called for the files with respect to the assessment. The specific contention taken by the Board in the counter affidavit filed herein was that the demand raised now, is with respect to the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated on the advance contribution due from the petitioner, which was deducted; when the revenue recovery with respect to the final determination order was issued. 7. The records were produced by the learned Standing Counsel. On going through the records, it is seen that the pre-requisition notice was issued and a WPC.594/2014 : 7 : determination order was passed dated 30.10.2003. The said determination order speaks of an amount of Rs.1,55,318/- as due from the petitioner with interest @ 18% being determined at Rs.99,936/-. Based on this revenue recovery certificate was issued for realisation of the debts in the year 2007, which is also available in the file. The revenue recovery certificate is numbered as K1/Ktm/14,15,16/00-01/RRC/LD/ 703. The said certificate though undated is seen to have been despatched on 18.07.2004. This is the requisition which is said to have been satisfied. The contention raised is that though the requisition shows an amount of Rs.3,23,807/- as due for the year 2000-2001 and an amount of Rs.73,073/- as interest due, recovery proceedings were initiated only for an amount of Rs.1,07,531/- towards principal contribution and Rs.99,936/- towards interest. This, admittedly, has been settled as is evident from Ext.P1. 8. Though there are inconsistencies in the amount realised, this Court is not concerned with the WPC.594/2014 : 8 : satisfaction of the said certificate. What is highlighted by the Board is that the Revenue Recovery is pending with respect to Rs.1,42,927/- which was deducted when the final determination order was sought to be recovered. This Court cannot countenance such a contention. Essentially, what the Board claims is that since the Act required advance contributions; on the petitioners failure to make the same, recovery steps were initiated for such advance contribution. When final determination orders were passed, though the amounts were determined as due under the Act, in initiating recovery proceedings, the advance contributions were deducted. That definitely, was a mistake on the part of the Board and mere pendency of such recovery proceedings cannot lead to deduction from the total amount due under the final determination order, when recovery for final determination was taken up. The recovery should have been proceeded with for the entire amounts due under the determination order. Deductions could have been WPC.594/2014 : 9 : granted only for that amount which stood satisfied. 9. What the Board contends is that the recovery for advance contributions is still pending against the petitioner. When a final determination order was passed, there is no question of any advance contribution being recovered. If such advance contributions were not paid, the Board could have definitely proceeded with the recovery for the amounts determined as per the final order. Deduction could be made in the final determination order, only if advance contributions were in fact, remitted or recovered. It was the incumbent duty of the Board to enquire as to such recovery or satisfaction, before deducting advance contributions from the final determination order. It was the final determination order, which was proceeded with and satisfied; evidenced by Ext.P1. When the contributions for the year 2000-2001 was settled as satisfied and the revenue recovery proceedings closed, no further demand could be raised on the advance contributions which the WPC.594/2014 : 10 : Board ought to have recovered as such or proceeded to recover along with final determination order. When once the recovery for a particular year is closed as satisfied, the Board again, cannot revive the recovery; especially since clear lapses occurred on the part of the Board. The Division Bench judgment quoted in the impugned order is of no avail in the circumstances. The revenue recovery proceedings now initiated for the year 2000-2001 is not liable to be proceeded with against the petitioner. Ext.P12 order is hence set aside. It is declared that the petitioner's liability to the Board for the year 2000-2001 remains satisfied. Writ petition allowed. Parties are left to suffer their costs. Sd/- ## **(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)** jma //true copy// P.A to Judge