IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24809 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.P. KHADEEJA, W/O. MUHAMMED SHEREEF, THASNI MAHAL, MEENADATHUR P.O., VIA: TANALUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.T.H.RAUSHAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TIRUR. 3. P.V. ABID ALI, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY ILLIKKATHODI HOUSE, VELLARA, ANTHIYORKUNNU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. V. HAMZA, S/O. POCKERKUTTY HAJI, IRUMPANTHODIYIL HOUSE P.O., ANTHIYOORKUNNU, KUTTIPPURAM. 5. R.C. RAJENDRAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, PADMANIVAS, 9488, CHALAYIL MANI, KAKIKAVE, KOZHIKODE. 6. SHRI. KUNHIPOCKER, MANAGER, A.M.U.P. SCHOOL, IRINGAVOOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1 G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN ABDUL RAFEEQ AND R3. P2: TRUE COPY OF R.C. PARTICULARS ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, TIRUR. P3: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.10.3.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.24809 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund for the years 2000-2005. According to the petitioner, vehicle purchased in 1997 was sold shortly thereafter. Petitioner's case is that vehicle is subject to series of sales among the parties made respondents 3 to 6 in the W.P.(C). Standing Counsel for first respondent submitted that provisional determination order though sent to the petitioner, was returned unserved. Therefore, final determination order was also issued based on which recovery is initiated. However, no details are furnished in this court as to the basis on which demand is raised against the petitioner. It is for the Executive Officer to conduct enquiry and find out as to who was the operating owner of the vehicle before issuing provisional and final determination orders. The W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioner to produce copy of this judgment before the first respondent for him to conduct enquiry as to who was in operation of the stage carriage and based on the same, to issue notice and issue fresh adjudication order. If petitioner is not found liable, then the orders issued 2 against him will be recalled and adjudication should be issued in the name of the concerned person. If first respondent proposes to raise demand against any other person, he should issue notice, hear their objection and pass final adjudication orders. The petitioner is directed to furnish details of owners before the first respondent within two weeks from date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which recovery will be continued against the petitioner. W.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms