PA SATHYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner to declare that the alleged liability of the petitioner towards payment to the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund stands discharged as on 05.02.2010, and no amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner, and further to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 and P7 demanding amounts from the petitioner, and issuing direction to recover the amount by selling off the property of the petitioner, respectively. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner was a licensee for conducting Toddy Shop Nos. 85 to 100 of Thamarassery Range during the financial year 1999-2000. Alleging arrears in payment on account of employer's contribution towards Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Substantial amounts were paid by the petitioner, which itself would have satisfied the debt, but respondents 2 to 4 caused auction sale of the property of petitioner's sister, which was offered as security to the transaction. It is submitted, what all amounts due from the petitioner was realized and he was free from liabilities from the date of confirmation of the said auction sale. Authorities are yet to refund the surplus amount collected while auctioning the property, together with interest from 05.02010.

(3.) It is also submitted that, on account of gross negligence and lack of co-ordination between respondents 2 to 4, amounts remitted by the petitioner, even those collected upon auction sale of property offered as security for transaction, were not properly accounted or credited against proper accounts. As a result, petitioner is still wrongly listed as a defaulter with huge liability with interest at high rate and costs piling upon same for many years now. According to the petitioner, Exts.P1, P2, P4 and P5 prove grave mistakes committed by respondents 2 to 4, and that the debt of the petitioner was discharged long ago. It is also stated that Exts.P3 and P7 are issued wrongly, alleging that amounts are still pending on the account of the petitioner, suggesting coercive action against petitioner's immovable property situate in Padichira Village. Authorities initially gave an impression to the petitioner that Exts.P3 and P7 are issued by mistake, and so petitioner need not be worried about the same. But, later, they took a view that they have no way other than to pursue with action based on Exts.P3 and P7. It is the contention of the petitioner that, even though frequent pleas and representations were made by the petitioner including Ext.P6, all failed to fetch any result.