IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 25916 of 1998(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.V.KUNCHI BAVA S/O. BAPPU AGED 43, PUTHEN VEETIL HOUSE, EDAPPAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DY.TAHSILDAR, (R&R), TALUK OFFICE, PONNANI. BY ADV. SC FOR KMTWWFB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.25916/1998 ORDER ON CMP. NO.45425/1998 IN OP. NO.25916/1998 DISMISSED 14.03.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 25.6.98 ISSUED BY THE SIT RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2;- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 1.7.99 SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE NOTICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3;- COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 8.12.98 AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 33 FOR ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, DT. NIL. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IN RESPECT OF THE BUS K.L. 10/7812. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.25916 of 1998-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this original petition aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings taken against him for arrears due to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. The contribution is alleged to be due in respect of stage carriage KL-10/7812. EXt.P1 is the notice served on the petitioner pursuant to which he filed Ext.P2 explanation. In the explanation he has clearly stated that in respect of stage carriage KL-10/7812 he has absolutely no connection and the notice might have been issued by mistake. Later on, Ext.P3 demand notice was issued under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act which is followed by Ext.P4 demand notice issued prior to the attachment of immovables. The petitioner has got a contention that after he had filed the objection, no further orders have been communicated to him. The petitioner has got a further case that the vehicle belonged to one P.V. Kunhippa, who is his brother. He has produced Ext.P5, the copy of the permit in respect of the vehicle, in the name of the said Kunhippa. He has also produced the certificate of insurance showing that the name of insurer is P.V. Kunhippa. OP 25916/1998 -2- 2. In spite of receipt of notice, the respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit. 3. The question is whether the petitioner is actually the owner or the person in possession, etc. to make him liable for payment of contribution. When the petitioner has denied his liability as being not the owner, then the authority should have conducted an enquiry into the matter before proceeding to issue demand notices. It is also clear from Ext.P5 (1) permit and Ext.P5(2) certificate of insurance that the permit holder is Shri P.V. Kunhippa. 4. In the light of the above facts, the first respondent is directed to conduct a proper enquiry into the matter with notice to the petitioner and Shri P.V. Kunhippa whose name is mentioned in Ext.P5. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The proceedings for recovery will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed as above. The original petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/