IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28747 of 2004(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.P.NAZAR, S/O. MAMMY KUTTY HAJI, VALIYAPEEDIKEKKAL HOUSE, VETTOM, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, THIRUR. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28747/2004-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DTD. 01/11/1998. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EM 1163/97-99/B3 DTD. 19/08/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD 26/02/01. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 16/02/01. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P. NO. 7541/2001 DTD. 05/03/2001. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REMITTANCE OF RS.7,500/-. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/04/2001. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 28747 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is of the year 2004. When the matter is taken up today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Counsel for the second respondent submits that the entire amount of welfare fund contribution due under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 from the petitioner for the period 1997-99 has been paid together with the interest accrued thereon and that no further amounts are due from the petitioner for the relevant period. I also notice that the entire amount has been paid in spite of the fact that an order of stay of recovery of the said amount granted by this Court in this case is still in operation. The irresistible conclusion possible is that the petitioner does not have any further interest in this writ petition. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj 2 3