IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 31323 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NIRMALA ANTONY, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.N.J. ANTONY, NARIPPARA HOUSE, MANADUKKAM, BALATHODU P.O., PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KAHANGAD. 2. C. KUNHAMBU NAIR, S/O.P. KUNHANBU NAIR, RESIDING AT C.K. NIVAS, KUTTICKAL, P.O. BELLA, BELLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.THAMBAN FOR R2 SMT.T.SUDHAMANI FOR R2 SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1 R3 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.10.2001 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2004 IN OS 444/2001 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 14.2.2005 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.4.205 IN I.A. FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 26813 OF 2005 DATED 14.10.2005 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2000 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE; DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO.31323 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund contribution payable for a stage carriage admittedly operated by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, second respondent was the registered owner and petitioner entrusted the contribution to the second respondent for remittance. Since determination order is issued in the name of the petitioner as operating owner of the vehicle, petitioner has to discharge the liability. If payment is not made, recovery is permissible against the petitioner. So far as arrangement between the petitioner and the second respondent, it is for the petitioner to file civil suit to settle the dispute between them. W.P. is dismissed with the above observation. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2