IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30111 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.V.KRISHNAPRASAD, CHITTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHUVARA P.O., PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505. 2. MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, KAVIL HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM, POOKKOTTUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-676517. 3. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.SULAIMAN, KORNAKUDIYAN, ARIYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PIN-678 583. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ TAXATION OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN-680 020. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.30111 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had purchased vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 9L 199 from the 3rd respondent by virtue of a sale agreement executed on 17.9.2009. It is stated that ownership of the vehicle was transferred into the name of petitioner with effect from 30.12.2009. The previous owner of the vehicle, 3rd respondent, had purchased the vehicle in turn from the second respondent. The second respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle with effect from 24.10.2008. While the vehicle was in the custody of the second respondent, it was being operated within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, contributions to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund is due with respect to the period during which the vehicle was in ownership and possession of respondents 2 and 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of specific requests made under Ext.P4, the 1st respondent is not taking any appropriate action for collection of arrears of contributions due from respondents 2 and 3. Wpc 30111/2010 2 2. It is evident that on receipt of Ext.P4, the first respondent had issued Ext.P5 reply to the petitioner intimating that, no proper documents are available to the effect that second respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that the petitioner had produced copies of relevant documents as per Ext.P3 to prove that the second respondent was the previous owner of the vehicle during the relevant period for which there is arrears of contributions. In the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks appropriate direction to the first respondent to take effective steps for determining the liability and for collecting arrears of contributions due to the Welfare Fund. 3. Heard, standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. It is submitted that contributions payable with respect to the vehicle is in arrears with respect to various periods, even prior to the periods during which the second respondent was in ownership and possession. However, it is for the first respondent to consider such matters and to take necessary steps for determination of the liability and for recovery of such amounts. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the Wpc 30111/2010 3 view that the writ petition can be disposed of by issuing necessary directions to the first respondent to consider Exts.P3 and P4 and to take appropriate steps in this regard. 5. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing first respondent to consider Ext.P4 request and to take effective steps for fixing liability with respect to payment of arrears of contributions and to take further steps to realise the amounts from those persons who are responsible. Needless to say, such proceedings shall be finalised after issuing notice to all parties concerned. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE lgk