(2011) 227 KLR 980 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN ================== W.P.(C).No. 32956 of 2011 (T) ================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 1. A.D.MATHEW, AGED 61 YEARS, ... Petitioner 2. A.D.JOHN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ... Respondent 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA, 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 4. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 5. WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI 6. WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI 7. THE TAHSILDAR(RR), TALUK OFFICE, For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI For Respondent :SRI.ROY CHACKO,SC,KERALA ABKARI WORKERS J U D G M E N T The petitioners are defaulters in payment of contributions under the Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act. They have already paid the principal amount. Now revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of interest and collection charges. The petitioners submit that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P3 amnesty scheme declared by the Government of Kerala. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and P8 and to quash the same; (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 5 and 6 to consider Ext.P6 and P9 and to pass orders granting benefits conferred under Ext.P3 Government Order/Amnesty Scheme; (c) Issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 7th respondent from collecting any amount from the Petitioners and their properties pursuant to Ext.P7 demand notice." 2. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that Ext.P3 amnesty scheme is not applicable to recovery of arrears of contributions under the Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act, but the same is applicable only in respect of Abkari arrears. In the wake of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to pay off the amounts due in instalments. This is also opposed by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 and 6. According to them, arrears are of the year 1992-93 and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to instalment facility for the same. Having considered the rival contentions in detail, I am of opinion that insofar as the petitioners have already paid the principal amount, some leniency can be shown to the petitioners by the respondents to enable the petitioners to pay off the balance amounts in instalments. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to pay the balance amounts due in eight equal monthly instalments starting from 2.1.2012. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioners pay the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings for recovery of the amounts shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioners commit default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge |
