2025:KER:28691 W.A.No.1390 of 2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 1390 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2023 IN WP(C) NO.8328 OF 2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: LEELAMMA PRASAD AGED 60 YEARS MAPPILAVEETTIL HOUSE, KALLIMALI KARA, MAMMATTIKANAM P.O., RAJAKKAD VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685566. BY ADVS.SAJI MATHEW ALFI ANWAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, HOUSING COLONY, VENGALLOOR P.O., IDUKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685608. 2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685553. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685554. BY ADVs. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28691 W.A.No.1390 of 2023 2 NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. & S.MANU, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1390 of 2023 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT S.MANU, J. Appellant approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.8328/2015 challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondents for recovering the dues of Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. Appellant contended that she had purchased 39.535 cents of property, with a residential building in Rajakkad Village against which proceedings have been initiated, by using her own money in 1992. She stated in the writ petition that she was surprised to know about the revenue recovery proceedings to recover the dues of her husband. Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 in the name of her husband are produced in the writ petition. She further contended that her husband was only a Coolie worker and had no involvement in Abkari business. She learnt 2025:KER:28691 W.A.No.1390 of 2023 3 that toddy shops were auctioned in the name of her husband and no property of the Appellant was offered as security any time. She therefore contended that proceedings initiated against property owned by her were illegal. 2. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent. It was stated in the affidavit that the Appellant's husband was the licensee of T.S.No.38 for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07 and T.S.No.Group V (14, 15, 16, 17, 82) for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. He had remitted all the welfare fund dues for the above said shops for the respective period upto 2009-10. He failed to remit the welfare fund dues of T.S.No.Group V for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12. Revenue Recovery Certificate was issued for recovery of the dues for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 with respect to T.S.No.Group V. In the enquiry conducted all relevant aspects were considered and determination order was passed. In the determination order for the period 2010-11 it was stated that contributions of the workers were collected by the Appellant in the absence of her husband. From the determination order it was clear that the Appellant had knowledge about the business activities of her husband and she was also involved in management of the business. It was also stated in the affidavit that the Appellant's husband was 2025:KER:28691 W.A.No.1390 of 2023 4 involved in Abkari business for 9 years and the contention that he was only a coolie worker was false. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides concluded that the writ petition was a proxy litigation to ward off the liability and dismissed it. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader was also heard. 4. Appellant has made an attempt to resist the recovery by stating that she was not even aware about the activities of her husband who according to her was only a coolie worker. She even stated that they were not in good terms when the property was purchased by her. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that they are living under the same roof and that was not denied by the learned counsel for the Appellant. If genuinely the Appellant had a case that proceedings have been initiated against a property which was purchased by her using her own funds and that she was not liable to be proceeded against for the dues of her husband, she ought to have arrayed him as a Respondent in the writ petition. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the non-joinder of the 2025:KER:28691 W.A.No.1390 of 2023 5 husband. The story projected in the writ petition cannot be believed and it is evident that the writ petition is a collusive litigation at the instance of the husband of the Appellant. Learned Single Judge rightly found so and did not entertain the writ petition. We find no reason to take a different view. Appeal is therefore dismissed. Sd/- NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:28691 W.A.No.1390 of 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WA 1390/2023 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL06031301723/2023 DATED 05.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, RAJAKKAD.