Judgment :- Balakrishnan, J. The petitioner is a Samajam registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner-Samajam owns 185 acres of land. The entire extent of land is used for the purpose of prawn fishing. The petitioner received Exts. P3 and P4 notices whereby amounts were directed to be paid towards the contribution due from the Samajam to Fishermen's Welfare Fund. It is contended that the petitioner is not liable to be assessed under the provisions of the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Act (for short, the act). According to the petitioner, eventhough the Samajam is the owner of the land, prawn filtration process is being conducted by persons who take this property on auction. It is contended by the petitioner that the right to conduct the fishing operation in this land is given in auction to various persons and these persons are given amount to the petitioner in accordance with the extent of the land taken by them in auction. The petitioner alleges that the Samajam is not liable to pay contribution to the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund. 2. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Act. But the counsel did not press the said contention in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this point. 3. We heard counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Sub-section (5) of S.4 of the Act reads as follows: "The owner of a prawn filtration area or a fish farm shall contribute every year to the fund two per cent of the value of the prawn and other fish caught from the prawn filtration area or the fish farm during the year: Provided that the Board shall fix upon such principles as may be specified in the scheme, the amount which the owner of a prawn filtration area shall contribute every year to the fund for a period of three years from the commencement of the Act: Provided further that the amount fixed under the preceding proviso shall not exceed two per cent of the value of the prawn and other fish caught during the year: Provided also that no contribution shall be payable by the owner of a fish farm for the first three years from the formation of the fish farm. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub section "pawn filtration area" means any water logged area where prawn filtration is carried on during the whole or any part of the year, but does not include any area where paddy is cultivated at any time during a year". 5. According to the petitioner, prawn filtration is being done by the persons who bid in auction and the petitioner-Samajam has no involvement in such business. It is also argued that the petitioner has not engaged any person, either as fisherman or as worker and they have no direct nexus with these persons and therefore, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay contribution for the welfare of the fishermen. 6. Going by the explanation to sub-section (5) of S.4, the property belonging to the Samajam seems to be a prawn filtration area. As it is a low lying area, paddy cultivation is not being done. It is admitted in the O.P. that the petitioner Samajam is the owner of the prawn filtration area. If the petitioner is the owner of the prawn filtration area, the Samajam is liable to pay contribution under Sub-section (5) of S.4 of the Act. It is not necessary to consider that there shall be any direct nexus between the petitioner and the fishermen or the workers engaged in the fishing industry who are benefited by the Welfare Fund. Admittedly, the petitioner is earning income from this property. Various provisions of the Act show that even persons having remote connection with the fishing industry are liable to pay contribution to the Fund. The petitioner being the owner of an extensive area of prawn filtration land is liable to pay contribution to the Fund and we hold so. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that before Exts. P3 and P4 notices are issued pre-assessment notices were not issued to the petitioner. The second respondent is directed to issue pre-assessment notice and give opportunity to file objections by the petitioner and only thereafter recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner for failure to pay contribution. 8. With the above observations, the O.P. is disposed of.