IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9378 of 2005(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G. BEGUM, W/O. USMAN, HOUSE NO.VII/57, NEAR GOVT.COLLEGE LADIES HOSTAL, P.O. VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KASARAGODE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KASARAGODE. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWWF BOARD FOR R1 R2 & R3 BY GOVT.PLADER SRI M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.9378/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.O1 804/04-05/KMT DATED 15/2/2005 RENDERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/3/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9378 OF 2005 ---------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May,2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KRD 9873. According to him, the said vehicle was sold by him about 5 years back. The welfare fund dues prior to the sale has, according to him, already been paid. Revenue recovery action was initiated against him for realisation of an amount of Rs.19,398/- towards the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Challenging the said action, he preferred this writ petition. The contention that he has sold the vehicle, cannot be considered in the absence of the transferee being made a party hereto. This Court specifically directed the petitioner to implead the transferree as an additional respondent by order dated 22nd March, 2005 and also granted a stay. Till now the petitioner has not chosen to implead the transferee. Therefore, it is not possible to adjudicate the question as to whether the vehicle was really transferred by the petitioner in favour of any other third party and whether there is any liability on such transferee. Since it is admitted by the petitioner that he was the registered owner, it is for him to -2- W.P.(C).No.9378/2005 prove that he has sold the vehicle and the registered owner is somebodyelse. He has not discharged his burden by producing any materials and by impleading the transferee. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he is not liable to pay the debts now demanded. Hence, the challenge against the revenue recovery action has to fail. However, if any amount is recovered from the petitioner and if the petitioner has got a case that somebodyelse is liable to pay the debt, he is entitled to seek such relief against the transferee, in accordance with the provisions of law. Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv.