Allowed

T.R. Raveendran v. Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Kerala HC26 Nov 2013WP(C)/24327/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two judge's order in a writ petition challenging non-disbursement of welfare fund excess contributions. The court held the Board must refund the amount upon the petitioner executing an indemnity bond to cover potential future claims by a third-party occupier.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Board to refund Rs.64,438/- within 15 days upon petitioner executing an indemnity bond.

T.R. Raveendran Vs Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 24327 of 2013 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.R. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, K.I.P.QUARTERS, NELLIMOOTTILPADI, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, KOLLAM. PIN 691 001

¶11

THE MANAGER

¶12

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD CHENGANNOOR BRANCH, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHADISTRICT. 689 631

¶13

THE MANAGER

¶14

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD

¶15

KOZHENCHERRY BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 691 523.

¶16

THE MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD P.M 32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR PIN - 670001.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.). SC, KSFE BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER.C.V., SC, KSFE R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI BY SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SC, HANTEX

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 24327 of 2013 (M)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN C.C. 15/07 OF THE JFMC, CHENGANNOOR EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 18.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 9.5.13 SENT BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 17.5.13 EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED 16.5.13 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT R2(a)	: ^{TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST DATED 08.11.1996} SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R2(b)	: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(c)	: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.11.1996 AND SURETIES.
EXHIBIT R2(d)	: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SURETY SOMARAJAN DATED 18.11.1996.
EXHIBIT R2(e)	: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SURETY V. JOSE DATED 18.11.1996.
EXHIBIT R2(f)	: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SURETY M. GEORGE DATED 18.11.1996.
EXHIBIT R2(g)	: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.11.1996 CONFIRMED BY THE DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R2(h)	: TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY SECURITY BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND SURETIES.
EXHIBIT R2(i)	: TRUE COPY OF THE STAMPED RECEIPT
EXHIBIT R2(j)	: TRUE COPY OF A DETAILED STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF R.R. CASES OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(k)	: TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOP CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENTS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF THE DEMAND NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SURETIES.

¶25

WP(C) NO. 24327/2013

¶26

EXHIBIT R2(l) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOP CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENTS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF THE DEMAND NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SURETIES. EXHIBIT R2(m) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOP CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENTS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF THE DEMAND NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SURETIES. EXHIBIT R2(n) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOP CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENTS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF THE DEMAND NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SURETIES. EXHIBIT R2(o) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOP CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENTS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF THE DEMAND NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SURETIES. EXHIBIT R2(p) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOP CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENTS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF THE DEMAND NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SURETIES.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J.

W.P.(C).No.24327 OF 2012

¶31

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2013

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner had approached this Court challenging the

¶34

action of the respondent in not disbursing an amount of Rs.64,438/-which was paid as the excess contribution to the respondent Board in respect of conducting Toddy Shop Nos.6 to 10 in group No.2 of Chadayamangalam Excise Range during the abkari year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P2 by which the Board had indicated that the licencee had remitted the entire welfare fund contribution and interest and therefore, no balance is due from the petitioner towards Toddy Workers Welfare Fund.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board on instructions would submit that the amount could not be refunded on account of the fact that another person namely Sri.Ramakrishnan was the occupier in respect of toddy shops conducted by the petitioner for the subsequent years. The said Ramakrishan is a defaulter in respect of toddy shops conducted by him earlier also and therefore, since the amount is due to the petitioner as well as the said Ramakrishnan, the Board is entitled to recover the amount due from Ramakrishnan from this amount as well. It is therefore submitted that unless a joint application is submitted by the petitioner along with the said Ramakrishan, it

¶36

W.P.(C).No.24327 OF 2012 2

¶37

could not be disbursed to the petitioner also. According to the Board, this amount could have been adjusted towards other dues of Ramakrishnan as he is also entitled to get this amount as well.

¶38

Having regard to the aforesaid submission the question involved is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek refund of the aforesaid amount. According to the petitioner as far as the abkari years 2008-2009-2010 is concerned, Ramakrishnan was not at all connected with the conduct of the toddy shops whereas he was only an employee of the said toddy shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Ext.P3 judgment by which this Court had occasion to consider as to whether no liability certificate could be issued by the Board and had formed an opinion that no liability certificate has to be issued without looking into the liability of Ramakrishnan.

¶39

In the above circumstance, I do not think that there is any reason for the respondent Board to desist from refunding the amount actually due to the petitioner if he is entitled for refund of the said amount.

¶40

Having regard to the aforesaid contention of the respondent Board, I am of the view that the amount can be directed to be disbursed to the petitioner on obtaining an indemnity bond from the petitioner undertaking to indemnify any loss that the Board may suffer on account of any claim being made by the aforesaid

¶41

W.P.(C).No.24327 OF 2012 3

¶42

Ramakrishnan in respect of the amount refunded to the petitioner.

¶43

In the result, this writ petition is disposed as follows:

¶44

The respondent Board shall refund to the petitioner the outstanding amount of Rs.64,438/- due to the petitioner on the petitioner executing a letter of indemnity agreeing and undertaking to make good any claim that may be made by any other person with respect of aforesaid amount. The payment shall be made by the respondent within 15 days from the date of executing the letter of indemnity as stated above.

¶45

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶46

cms

T.R. Raveendran v. Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R. Raveendran v. Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji Alex Vs District Collector

Nujumudeen Vs Themanager, Ksfe Ltd.

Joseph Vilangadan Vs State of Kerala

Gomathi Vs Syndicate Bank

A.M.Abdul Hameed Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Sasidharan Pilla Vs State of Kerala