IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 541 of 2008(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- M.O.PAREED, MAENAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR SRI.K.G.CLEETUS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 541 OF 2008 M ===================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The matter arises under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. Ext.P2 is the final determination order fastening liability on the petitioner. Against Ext.P2, petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P5. Thereafter revenue recovery steps have been taken and in this background this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P2, P5 and P6. 2. The main complaint raised by the petitioner is that he was not heard before his appeal was rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P5 order. It is stated in Ext.P5 that initial hearing was fixed on 11/1/2007 and the same was postponed at the request of the petitioner to 19/6/07. It is stated that though notice of posting was issued, neither the petitioner nor the counsel appeared for hearing. It is on this basis, the appeal was WPC 541/08 :2 : considered and rejected by Ext.P5. 3. However, the petitioner submits that on receipt of the notice posting the appeal to 19/6/07, his counsel had sought an adjournment and that without taking into account the said request, the appeal was considered and rejected. Ext.P4 affidavit filed by the counsel in this court also affirms this position. On a reading of Exts P4 and P5, what emerges is that despite a request that was made by the counsel for the petitioner, without considering the request so made, the appeal has been rejected. 4. If the position is as above, it cannot be said that the petitioner is to be faulted. Even otherwise, for a mistake that has been committed by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Thus, Ext.P5 has to be held as one passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. For that reason, Ext.P5 deserves to be quashed. Consequently Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of the amount due in terms of Exts.P2 and P5 also deserves to be set aside. WPC 541/08 :3 : Accordingly, quashing Exts. P5 and P6, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall take up and consider Ext.P3 appeal with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp