IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33234 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.P.SEBASTIN, S/O.PAPPU, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAYIL HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM,NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUZHUPPILLY. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.)KOHI. 3. EDISON T.G., THENIPPILLY HOUSE, TROMWAY LANE, CHALAKUDY. 4. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R4 BY SHRI P. RAMAKRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33234 OF 2008 F -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the first respondent from enforcing Ext.P4 demand notice as against the petitioner and also seeks a declaration that the liability, if any, to remit the amounts demanded under Ext.P2 final determination order is exclusively on the third respondent. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner along with the third respondent had been involved in the conduct of a stage carriage service. According to petitioner, it came to be dissolved on 6.6.1998 and the stage carriage was transferred to the third respondent. The stage carriage undertaking was run and managed by the third respondent and five others on the strength of a new Partnership Deed. A final determination order as Ext.P2 came to be issued for the years 1998 - 2001 wherein the third respondent was arrayed as the principal employer. Petitioner was also arrayed as the person- WPC.33234/08 F 2 in-charge of the undertaking. Third respondent preferred Appeal under Section 8(5) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 vide Ext.P3. In the meantime, Ext.P4 demand notice was issued by the Tahsildar. The third respondent filed OP No.33126/02 and this Court granted stay on condition that the third respondent shall deposit Rs.30,000/= and ultimately this Court disposed of the Original Petition directing the Appellate Authority to pass final orders on Ext.P3 Appeal. Thereafter, Ext.P3 Appeal was rejected against which the third respondent filed W.P.(C). No.17856/06 and this Court by Ext.P8 Judgment, granted instalment facility to pay the amount in ten equal monthly instalments. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has sold his property to one Shri Johnson K. Maliakal in the year 2000, prior to Ext.P2 assessment order and the endeavour on the part of the first respondent to proceed against the aforesaid property has resulted in the present owner Shri Johnson filing a Claim Petition under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is stated that the petitioner has also WPC.33234/08 F 3 apprised the first respondent about all the facts leading to Ext.P8 Judgment. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. There is a final determination order by which the petitioner is made liable. Petitioner did not choose to challenge the order. The third respondent carried the matter in appeal and also before this Court. The Appeal was dismissed. The Writ Petition filed by the third respondent was disposed of granting instalment facility to the third respondent. Counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the third respondent did not comply with the Judgment. In such circumstances, revenue recovery proceedings are pressed. Counsel for petitioner, of course, submits that a fresh partnership was evolved and the proceedings can be taken against the third respondent who had, in fact, challenged the matter before the Appellate Authority as well as before this Court. WPC.33234/08 F 4 5. Having regard to the determination order, which has become final, petitioner cannot say that he is not liable to pay the amount, he having not challenged the same in the appropriate Forum. In such circumstances, it is very clear that the proceedings can be lodged against the petitioner as also the third respondent, if the third respondent has not complied with the conditions in Ext.P8. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge