IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19865 of 2006(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.SUNIL,S/O.K.M.KRISHNAN, MURADAVIL HOUSE,THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, PONNANI. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 19865/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 20.11.2001 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EM 1481/02-03/B2 DATED 06.06.2003 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 27.07.2003 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2005 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15.06.2006 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 19865 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in the Writ Petition is with regard to the disputed liability of the petitioner to satisfy the amount stated as due from him under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act 1985, in respect of the stage carriage No. KL 10 M 5762 owned and operated by the petitioner at the relevant time. 2. The challenge raised against the impugned proceedings was entertained by this Court by admitting the matter and the coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 were intercepted granting an interim stay on 28.07.2006, on condition that the petitioner paid the amount demanded under protest or by furnishing Bank Guarantee for the said amount. Subsequently, when the matter came up for further consideration on 31.01.2006, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had already satisfied the due amount 'under protest'. In the said circumstance, this Court ordered that, there will not be any Revenue Recovery pursuant to Ext.P5; simultaneously directing the 2nd respondent to file a statement or affidavit. 3. Inspite of the specific direction as above, no such statement WP(C) No.19865/2006 2 or affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent till the day before yesterday; when a statement has been filed explaining the sequence of events and seeking to sustain the impugned orders. However, nothing has been mentioned in the said statement, as to the version of the petitioner as recorded by this Court on 31.10.2006 regarding satisfaction of the liability 'under protest', which means, the submission made in this regard is not intended to be controverted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the amount due has been satisfied by the petitioner, though under protest, the petitioner does not intend to pursue the matter any further. In the said circumstance, nothing further remains to be considered or adjudicated in the Writ Petition and hence it is closed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc