Remanded

Latheefa Beevi v. the Chairman,Tvm Committee,Kerala Headlo

Kerala HC7 Dec 2010WP(C)/26269/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue recovery initiated by the Thiruvananthapuram Committee under the Kerala Head Load Workers Scheme without considering her reply claiming exemption. The High Court reversed recovery steps and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The 1st respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's objections and hearing before deciding on registration liability and penaltie

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's objections and decide on registration liability and penalty within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Latheefa Beevi Vs the Chairman,Tvm… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 26269 of 2010(G)

PETITIONER(S):

LATHEEFA BEEVI, LATHEEFA TILES DEPOT, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM COMMITTEE, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, VANCHIYUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶14

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEDUMANGAD-695 541.

¶15

ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R-1

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2010.

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is running a business concern dealing in building materials, situated at Market Junction, Nedumangad. According to the petitioner she has got three permanent registered workers for doing the loading and unloading works in connection with her business activities, for whom identity cards as evidenced from Exts.P1 to P3 were issued by the authority concerned, under the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. The case of the petitioner is that since she has got three attached workers, she is not liable to be registered under the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme formulated under the above said Act. However, the petitioner received Ext.P4 notice issued by the 1^st respondent demanding registration under the Scheme, on payment of the required fee as well as penalty, for the period from 1.4.1991 to 30.7.2008. It is

¶21

W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G 2

¶22

stated that on receipt of Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply as per Ext.P5, narrating the above contentions. The complaint of the petitioner is that without considering the reply submitted, revenue recovery steps were initiated at the behest of the 1^st respondent, on issuing Exts.P6 and P7 notices under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Hence the petitioner is challenging the recovery steps initiated.

¶23

In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st

¶24

respondent it is stated that as per paragraph 7 of the Scheme, every employer who engages and employs head load workers in an establishment, is bound to register their names with the local committee constituted within a period of 30 days from the date of commencement of the functional operation of the scheme, in the area in question. Therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner and other establishments requiring them to register under the Scheme. It is further stated that as per paragraph 7(2) of the Scheme, if there is failure on the part of the employer for taking registration,

¶25

¶26

W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G

¶27

the same will attract penalty. According to the 1^st respondent, the revenue recovery steps was initiated since the petitioner has not responded to Ext.P4 notice.

¶28

From the facts and circumstances as narrated

¶29

above and considering the rival submissions, it is evident that the contentions raised by the petitioner that she is not liable to be registered under the Scheme, was not seen considered by the 1^st respondent. It is evident that the recovery steps were initiated before the petitioner could file objections, as evidenced from Ext.P5. Whether the petitioner is at an obligation to take registration, is a matter which need be considered, at the first instance, by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that a remand of the matter for fresh consideration by the 1^st respondent, will serve ends of justice.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P5 objections submitted by the petitioner, after affording her an opportunity of hearing, and to take a decision as to whether

¶31

¶32

W.P(C) No.26269 of 2010-G

¶33

the petitioner is liable for taking registration and as to whether she can be imposed with penalty for not taking registration within the appropriate time.

¶34

A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as

¶35

possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶37

Latheefa Beevi v. the Chairman,Tvm Committee,Kerala Headlo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latheefa Beevi v. the Chairman,Tvm Committee,Kerala Headlo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Thomas Vs Andhra Bank

The Kerala State Vyapari Vyavasaya Sami Vs Sales Tax Commissioner

Taxi Drivers Co-Op. Society Ltd. Vs the Chief Manager,Kfc and Others

Sindu P.P. Vs Icici Bank

Shahul Hameed Vs State Bank of Travancore, Kuthiyathode

Jenson Vs Dist.Collector