IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 11432 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. MURALIDHARA BHATT, S/O. SHYAM BHAT, NELLIKKALAYA HOUSE, P.O. PALLATHADUKKA, KASARAGOD. 2. SATYANARAYANA BHATT, S/O. SHYAM BHATT, NELLIKKALAYA HOUSE, P.O. PALLATHADUKKA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS, WELFARE FUND BOARD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KANHANGAD-671 315. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1 & 3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 11432/2005. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 PHOTO COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2 CERTIFICATE OF DISMANTLING. EXT.P3 DETERMINATION ORDER FOR 1999-2000. EXT.P3(a) DETERMINATION ORDER FOR 2000-2001. EXT.P3(b) DETERMINATION ORDER FOR 2002-2003. EXT.P4 PHOTO COPY OF NOTICE. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 11432 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts. P3, P3(a) and P3(b) final determination orders issued under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. Exts. P3, P3(a) and P3(b) are dated 10-11- 2000, 31-5-2001 and 1-11-2003 respectively. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the same as provided under the Act. This writ petition itself is filed only on 31-3-2005. The petitioner has not been able to explain the long delay. In fact, the petitioner has not offered any explanation at all. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that in the proceedings which culminated in the impugned orders, the petitioner never appeared and raised objections. It is only after 3 years he comes with a contention that the vehicle itself was dismantled prior to that. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/