IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 76TH POUSHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 1989 of 2008(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. T.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KEERTHY CULTURAL & CATERING, RANJINI APARTMENTS, PUTHUSSERY, CHERUTHURUTHY - 679 531, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.T. PRASANNA, PROP. M/S. SANGEETHA CULTURAL & CATERING SERVICE, 5/47 SHILPA COMPLEX, PUTHUSSERY, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERRY. 2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN, FOR R1 SMT. I. SHEELA DEVI, SC, FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1989 OF 2008 J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains that motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle is not accepted. According to the petitioner refusal of acceptance of tax is for the reason that the petitioner has not paid the contribution due under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act'). It is contended that the vehicle in question is used for catering service and that is not included among the categories mentioned in Ext. P4 and hence contribution is not payable. 2. I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The reason for non-acceptance of tax is non-payment of contribution. Motor transport undertaking has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Act as a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward and includes a private carrier. In WPC No. 1989/08 -2- this case the petitioners cannot contend that the vehicle belonged to them does not come at least within the category of private carrier. If that be the position, the petitioners cannot claim that the vehicle used for catering service is excluded from the provisions of the Act. Further on a perusal of Ext. P4, I do not find any provision excluding vehicles used for catering services as contended by the petitioners. If that be so, the respondents are right in refusing to accept tax in view of the default committed by the petitioners for making payment of contribution under the Welfare Fund Scheme. Writ petition flails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-