IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 34733 of 2005(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.K.RAJEEV, T.C.40/820, "RAJEEVAM", SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.AJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KRALA STATE MOTOR TRANSPORT WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY G.P. SRI. K.P. PRADEEP R2 BY SC SRI. K. HARILAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICES DATED 18.5.1999, 17.2.2000, 4.12.2001, 4.12.2001 AND 0.2.2003 EXT.P2 SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 4.6.1998, 29.1.1999, 29.10.1999, 17.12.1999, 29.7.2000, 7.5.2000 AND 20.2.2003 EXT.P3 SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICES DATED 16.7.2005 (5 NUMBERS) EXT.P4 SERIES- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 10.2.2005, 10.2.2005, 1.3.2005, 10.3.2005, 29.3.2005, 17.4.2005,. 15.4.2005, 18.4.2004, 30.4.2005, 30.4.2005, 7.5.2005, 8.6.2005, 13.7.2005, 12.8.2005, 9.9.2005, AND 14.10.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34733 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor transport workers welfare fund due from the year 1997-98 onwards. Even though petitioner has stated that he has cleared arrears upto 2002, standing counsel for Welfare Fund Board submitted a statement which shows substantial outstanding for the year 1997-98, and for other years, except for the year 1998-99. Even though demand for 2003-04 was challenged in WPC this Court dismissed the same. For the year 2004-05 the assessment and demand are under appeal before the Government. Since petitioner admittedly was operating stage carriage in respect of which demand is raised and since no appeal is filed inspite of service of final determination order, details of which are furnished by the respondent in this Court, there is no scope for interference with recovery proceedings. O.P. is accordingly dismissed leaving freedom to the respondents to proceed for recovery. However, if the petitioner gets any relief in the appeal, so much of the amount 2 found to be paid in excess should be refunded to the petitioner, if petitioner is eligible based on orders in appeal. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3