IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14552 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ C.K.JYOTHIRAJ, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. C.V.KUNJIKKUTTAN, SANDHYA NIVAS, (FROM JYOTHI BHAVAN), C.M.C.- 13, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, KIZHAKKEKKOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR THOZHILALI WELFARE BOARD, P.B.NO. 172, THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. R2 BY SHRI K. HARILAL, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 14552 OF 2008 G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage. According to him, he is remitting tax without fail. When the petitioner approached the third respondent on 12.2.2008, he was informed that unless he pays the employer's contribution for eight months towards the Employees' Welfare Fund, the tax will not be accepted. He was compelled to pay Rs.23,490/= as road tax and a sum of Rs.8,400/= to the second respondent as contribution for eight months of the Employees' Welfare Fund under protest. Petitioner preferred Ext.P3 representation. Ext.P4 is the Circular issued, wherein it is indicated that the employer's contribution along with arrears is mandatory for accepting road tax without insisting for payment of employees' contribution to the same. It is alleged that it is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Learned counsel for petitioner challenges Ext.P4 Circular and seeks a mandamus to the fifth respondent to accept payment of road tax alone, without making the payment of employer's contribution to the Employees Welfare Fund a mandatory pre-requisite condition. 2. I heard Shri K. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned WPC. 14552/08 G 2 counsel for the second respondent. The requirement that the owner of a stage carriage should remit the employer's contribution is enjoined under the provisions of a Statute as brought by an amendment. The Circular essentially purports to enforce the same. Learned Government Pleader also submits that, in fact, there is a challenge to the said provision and the said provision stands upheld by this Court. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the Circular. A mandamus cannot be asked to do something contrary to the statutory provision or a Circular which I have found is not liable to be interfered with. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and it is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.