IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3310 of 2009(R) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 53 MANGALODAYAM, MULANTHURUTHY.PO ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KMTWWF BOARD, ,SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN. R2 BY SHRI P. RAMAKRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 3310 OF 2009 R -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage having Ext.P1 regular Permit and Ext.P6 time schedule (in WP(C). No.38158/08P). It is his case that during the last one year the said vehicle was not running and kept in G Form due to the pendency of proceedings before various Authorities and Court of Law. It is stated that Ext.P4 interim order was passed by this Court directing that subject to compliance with the conditions in Exts.P3 and P4 therein and on the petitioner satisfying all other statutory liabilities, the second respondent therein who is the Regional Transport Officer shall permit the petitioner to ply the stage carriage. It is stated that the respondent Regional Transport Officer is, however, refusing to accept the vehicle tax for the month of December, 2008 onwards citing the reason that the petitioner is liable to pay welfare fund for the last seventeen WPC3310/09 R 2 months before paying tax. The amount alleged is Rs.17,850/=. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned standing counsel would point out that actually the vehicle was in G Form only for two months. It is further contended that even if the vehicle is in G Form, that does not mean that the owner is absolved from the liability to pay contribution under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. 3. Section 8(a) creates a duty to pay the money due as contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, in order that the tax may be received. The direction that the petitioner seeks is that he may be permitted to pay only a portion of the amount and yet the tax may be received. This is directly opposed to the mandate of the Statute. A writ is sought for a direction to the Authority to act contrary to the Statute. This is plainly impermissible. If this is permitted, it can be led WPC3310/09 R 3 to cases where persons can approach this Court seeking similar orders which are opposed to law. I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge