IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8997 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.P.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, EX-SERVICEMAN, S/O.RAMAGUPTHAN, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, CHETHALLUR AMSOM, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MS. C.G.PREETHA MR. T.K.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. TAHSILDAR(RR), TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ROBINSON ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, PALAKKAD. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, TACHANATTUKARA, NO.II VILLAGE, CHETHALLUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 5. K.G.VISHWANATHAN, S/O.K.V.GURUVAYOORAPPAN, SHARAVANABHAVANP, KAAVILPPAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD. * 6. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD (impleaded as additional 6th respondent as per order in I.A. 7134/0 dt. 4.6.2010) R1, R2 AND R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R3 ADV. MS. I.SHEELADEVI, SC,KMTWF BOARD R5 MS. P.RANI DIOTHIMA FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 8997 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2002 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.6.2005 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 783/2005 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 18.01.2010 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 9/24547 DATED 11.03.2010 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : EXT. R1 (a) : TRUE COPY OF SALE AGREEMENTDATED 5.12.2003 ENTERED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND K..K. SULAIMAN /True copy/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 8997 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The steps taken by the respondents invoking the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, to release the amount stated as due to the 3rd respondent under the Kerala Motor Workers Welfare Fund, pertaining to the vehicle bearing No. KL09 L-65, which was earlier owned by the petitioner, are under challenge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was never the owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, he having sold the same to the 5th respondent, effecting necessary change in the registration certificate w.e.f. 5.9.2003 and this being the position, the impugned proceedings seeking to realize the liability in respect of the period from April, 2004 to May, 2005 is not correct or sustainable under any circumstances. 3. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent, with reference to the counter affidavit, submits that, the factum of purchase of the vehicle from the petitioner and change of ownership in the certificate of Registration w.e.f. 5.9.2003 is very much true and correct. The vehicle was purchased from the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 agreement. However, on finding that the operation of the vehicle was not feasible, it W.P. (C) No. 8997 of 2010 : 2 : was sold to another person by name K.K. Sulaiman on 5.12.2003 and as such, the 5th respondent is not liable to satisfy the demand. 4. The third respondent has filed a statement (original of which is still to form part of the record, though a copy of the same has been handed over to this Court for perusal), which shows the sequence of events as narrated by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has taken note of in paragraph 4, as to the case of the 5th respondent that he had purchased the vehicle from the petitioner and that he was operating the same till he sold the vehicle to somebody else. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the statement that the proceedings were finalized by the 3rd respondent fixing the liability upon the petitioner, since the change of ownership of the vehicle by the petitioner to the 5th respondent was not intimated to the office of the said respondent. 5. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent submits that the ownership of the vehicle was actually transferred by the petitioner to the 5th respondent w.e.f. 5.9.2003 and subsequently in favour of one V.M.Saboora w.e.f. 3.7.2006. This shows that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liability in respect of the period in question i.e. w.e.f. April 2004 to May, 2005 6. In the above circumstances, Ext.P4 notice for causing the property of the petitioner to be sold in public auction is held as not W.P. (C) No. 8997 of 2010 : 3 : correct or sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. This however will not bar the way of the concerned respondents from proceeding against the concerned 'employer' of the vehicle as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent, No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd