IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36484 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.A.SAMUEL, PLAMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, MEKKOZHOOR, MYLAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MYLAPRA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 BY SHRI K. HARILAL, SC. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 36484 OF 2008 R -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act. Petitioner challenged the assessment orders before this Court and it culminated in Ext.P1 Judgment. Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is stated to be an order issued by the second respondent Tahsildar, calling upon the petitioner to remit certain sums which are stated to be for various years. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4. Complaint of the petitioner is that no revised assessment as directed by this Court in Ext.P1 was passed and Ext.P3 is vitiated. It is the case of the petitioner that an enquiry notice was issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to appear on 13.10.2008 and the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and the hearing was adjourned and he was instructed to appear as and when he pleases. It is stated that the petitioner had contacted the WPC.36484/08 R 2 first respondent on a number of occasions and enquired over phone also. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, however, points out that the petitioner was actually not present on 13.10.2008 and, in fact, an order has already been passed. He further points out that there was no direction as such by this Court in Ext.P1 Judgment to hear the petitioner. But still, a notice was indeed issued seeking to give an opportunity of hearing. Whatever that be, the fact remains that an order has already been passed. In such circumstances, I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to challenge the said order and the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing communication of the order to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner, if aggrieved, to work out the remedies available in law, if so advised. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to communicate the order to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. The interim WPC.36484/08 R 3 order passed by this Court will continue for two weeks from today. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge