IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 182 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1764/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- SONICHAN JOHN, S/O. M.V.THOMAS, KATOOR HOUSE, NEDUNKANDAM, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. TAHSILDAR (RR), CHENGANASSERY. 3. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 4. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHANGANASSERY. 5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. R1,R2 & R4 & R5 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA BABU R3 BY SC SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008 ALONG WITH WPC 1764 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.182 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.1764 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.1764 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT When the review petition came up for hearing, counsel was requested to argue the W.P. also. Accordingly, both the petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The amount disputed is Rs.1,91,930/- being arrears of motor vehicle tax and Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund payable by the petitioner as a stage carriage operator. Even though petitioner has claimed that petitioner has not operated the vehicle on account of accident and Form G was said to be filed claiming exemption, no proof is produced in court to substantiate any of these facts. If Form G was filed, it would have been acknowledged by the office of the RTO. The petitioner has not produced any such evidence. Moreover, petitioner's claim that the vehicle was involved in accident and could not be operated thereafter is not proved by any material. Further, challenge against arrears of tax due from 1.7.1990 to 31.12.1994 is raised in this petition only after serious recovery proceedings in the form of arrest of the petitioner under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act is initiated. 2 I do not find any bonafides in the challenge against motor vehicle tax. So far as arrears of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund is concerned, if petitioner has grievance against the final determination order, he could have filed appeal against the same. The O.P. is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. I find no ground to interfere with the interim order passed in review proceeding. The Review Petition is therefore only to be dismissed. However, petitioner is granted ten instalments to clear the arrears. The petitioner will remit 10% of the demand before the Tahsildar within ten days from today and along with it he will give nine post-dated cheques for the balance amount encashable on or before the last day of nine months commencing from March 2008. If any cheque is dishonoured, the instalment facility will stand automatically cancelled and respondents will proceed to arrest the petitioner forthwith and shall release him only after clearing the entire arrears. If petitioner makes payment as above, no further interest, surcharge or collection charges should be recovered from the petitioner and recovery should be limited to the amount shown in Ext.P1 notice. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms