High Court of KeralaWP(C)/2018/2015dismissed as withdrawn

Antony Joseph v. The Commissioner Of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram.

2015-01-29Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/9TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2018 of 2015 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- ANTONY JOSEPH, PATTASSERY HOUSE, SOUTH ARYAD, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY.

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

3. THE DISTRICT TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

4. THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, OFFICE OF THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, ULLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.K. SHERIN.

R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 2018 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

When the petitioner was demanded through Exhibit P5 Chalan to pay advance contribution towards the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund, he filed the present writ petition seeking two months time to comply with the said demand. It appears that before approaching this Court, the petitioner also made a representation on 09.01.2015 before the second respondent seeking the same relief. Today, the learned Government Pleader has informed the Court that the petitioner's application for extension of licence was rejected for non-remittance of advance contribution towards the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund, as well as other amounts.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far no orders have been served on the petitioner. At any rate, he has sought the leave of this Court to withdraw

W.P.(c) No. 2018 of 2015 the writ petition in the light of the subsequent developments, with a leave to challenge the order of rejection of the second respondent, if any.

In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty for the petitioner to take further recourse in terms of extant provisions of law. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-