IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 8291 of 1998(K) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PREMACHANDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, NARANATT HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV SMT.T.B.MINI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. LOHITHAKSHAN A.K., S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PERUMBADANNA MURI PARAVOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT ATHIYARATH HOUSE, POOPATHI PO., TRICHUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R2&R3 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.T.C.KRISHNA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON 15/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.14196/1998 IN O.P. NO.8291/1998 DISPOSED OF VIDE JUDGMENT: 15.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DT.28.6.94 EXECUTED BETWEN R4 AND RAMESHAN. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.23.7.1997 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. P2a: TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE TO EXT.P2 OF .DO. P2b: .DO. .DO. P3: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.5.2.98 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER DT.16.2.98 TO R3. P5: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DT.16.2.98. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.8291 of 1998 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund arrears due for six employees including the petitioner who was the driver of the vehicle. The case of the petitioner is that 4th respondent is the registered owner and therefore, contribution, if any, has to be recovered from him. However, first respondent has stated that in the enquiry conducted on 27.7.1994 petitioner himself appeared and stated that he was operating the vehicle by employing other persons named in the adjudication order. Even though notice was issued, registered owner has not filed his version. Moreover, petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the arrangement between himself and the registered owner whereunder petitioner undertook operation of the vehicle. If petitioner was operating the vehicle, then petitioner is liable to pay contribution and petitioner's liability is not affected merely because petitioner himself was the driver of the vehicle. In other words, if petitioner has given the statement that he was operating the stage carriage, then the demand against him is enforceable through recovery proceedings. 2 However, if petitioner has not given any such statement as stated in this court, then adjudication has to be issued in the name of the registered owner after issuing notice to him. The first respondent is directed to refer the files and if petitioner has given statement about the operation of the vehicle, then to issue a copy of the statement filed by the petitioner along with a copy of final adjudication order for him to file appeal on the quantum of liability determined by the first respondent. However, if petitioner has not given any statement, then there will be direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed for recovery against the petitioner under the impugned orders for three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The first respondent will in that event issue notice to 4th respondent, hear his objections and pass final adjudication orders afresh and thereafter he will recall the impugned order issued to the petitioner. If 4th respondent has grievance against such adjudication order, he can also file appeal. Recovery proceedings will continue to remain stayed for one month from date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the petitioner and thereafter recovery will be continued based on intimation or adjudication from the first respondent as directed above. The O.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms