IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34229 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KUNJUMANI, UNNINIVAS, NE WARD, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER VAIKOM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34229 of 2010-C ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing No.KL-01/W 3425. The vehicle in question was transferred into the name of the petitioner with effect from 30.12.2008, as evidenced from Ext.P1 copy of registration certificate. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not accepting contributions payable to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund and in turn the petitioner is prevented from remitting motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicle, because the 1st respondent is not accepting tax for want of production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the welfare fund. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had purchased the vehicle from one Sri.Aswathi Kumar and that the said person had remitted contributions to the welfare fund due till the month of 12/2008, as evidenced from W.P(C) No.34229 of 2010-C 2 Ext.P2. According to the petitioner he is ready and willing to make payment of contributions due from 1.1.2009 onwards. But the 3rd respondent is not accepting the contributions on the allegation that some arrears is due from the still previous owner, Sri.Abdul Samad, from whom Sri.Aswathi Kumar had purchased the vehicle. It was contended that the establishment of said Sri.Abdul Samad was covered under the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and that he was paying contributions to the Employment Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore the arrears claimed by respondents 2 and 3 are not amounts actually due, is the contention. Further contention of the petitioner is that, even if it is found that any amount is in arrears, he could not be held liable since the vehicle was transferred into his name only with effect from 30.12.2008. Therefore, non-acceptance of the contributions by the 3rd respondent as well as the non- acceptance of motor vehicles tax by the 1st respondent, are challenged in this writ petition. W.P(C) No.34229 of 2010-C 3 3. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, on the basis of instructions, submitted that there is arrears of around `43,000/- due as contributions payable to the welfare fund, pertaining to the period during which the vehicle was in the ownership and possession of above said Sri.Abdul Samad. It is further pointed out that as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, the arrear of contribution is a charge on the vehicle and therefore the petitioner could not contend that he is not liable for payment of amount due. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the rival submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner could not be deprived of his right to operate the vehicle, because of pendency of this dispute regarding the liability for payment of the alleged arrears due to the welfare fund. It is left open to the appropriate authority among respondents 2 and 3 to adjudicate upon the matter and to take appropriate steps for recovery of amounts if any found due, from those who are liable under law, including steps against the vehicle W.P(C) No.34229 of 2010-C 4 as permitted under law. But pending finalisation of such recovery, there is no justification in not accepting contributions payable by the petitioner for the period from 1.1.2009 onwards. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to receive contributions from the petitioner, with respect to vehicle bearing No.KL-01/W 3425, for the period from 1.1.2009 onwards. Needless to say that, on production of proof regarding payment of contributions for the above said period, the 1st respondent shall accept motor vehicles tax due on the vehicle. 6. It is made clear that as already observed, the acceptance of contributions or the acceptance of motor vehicle tax as per directions given above will be without prejudice to any action which may be taken by the respondents for collection and recovery of arrears if any, due in accordance with law from persons who are liable. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab