IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3855 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.P. SIVARAMAN, THENGINAL VEEDU, IKKAD.P.O, KODUMON, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), ADOOR 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUMON, ADOOR TALUK. R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY SHRI K. HARILAL, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 3855 OF 2009 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court on the following brief allegations: Petitioner is the Deputy Director of Education at Kasaragod. He is not engaged in any other gainful business or avocation other than his Government employment. According to him, his sister Sarasamma was the registered owner and operator of a stage carriage vehicle after availing loan facility and subsidy from the Harijan Welfare Department. The vehicle was operated till the end of 2007 and all dues and payments including contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund have been paid. It is stated that since his sister has no other place, the vehicle is parked and garaged in the compound of the petitioner. It is further stated that he is not the registered owner, operator or possessor of the said vehicle and he has no WPC.3855/09 H 2 personal or proprietary liability to pay any amount. Ext.P2 is a notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act attaching the property. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3. The prayer is to quash Ext.P2. A direction is sought to consider Ext.P3 and to abstain from collecting the amount. 2. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the second respondent. Exts.R2(a) to R2(n) are produced. Ext.R2(a) is the provisional determination order for the year 2001 - 2002. It is stated that Ext.R2(b) is the objection of one Shri A.R. Prabhakaran Nair. The said Prabhakaran Nair had filed an objection that he sold the vehicle to the petitioner. It is stated that there was an inspection and the workers deposed that the petitioner is operating the vehicle and he is the employer. Ext.R2(c) is the Inspection Note. Ext.R2(d) is the provisional determination order for the year 2002 - 2003. Ext.R2(e) is the acknowledgment. Petitioner filed objection to Ext.R2(d), authorising Shri A. R. Prabhakaran WPC.3855/09 H 3 Nair to sign the document on his behalf. Ext.R2(f) is the objection. Ext.R2(g) is the authorisation. Shri A.R. Prabhakaran Nair furnished details of three workers. On the basis of the deposition and evidence, it is stated that Ext.R2(h) final determination order for the year 2002 - 2003 was passed. Ext.R2(i) is stated to be the acknowledgment. It is further stated that the petitioner remitted the above amount by nineteen instalments. A provisional determination order was issued for 2003 - 2004 on the basis of the final determination order for 2002 - 2003. Ext.R2(j) is the acknowledgment. It is stated that even though the petitioner filed objection, he did not participate and thereupon Ext.R2(k) final determination order for the year 2003 - 2004 was passed. Petitioner is stated to have remitted the amount in seventeen instalments. Thereafter, on the basis of the final determination order for 2003 - 2004, a provisional determination order for 2004 - 2005 for Rs.34,413/= was passed and issued to the petitioner with a direction to file objection. It WPC.3855/09 H 4 is stated to have been returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”. Thereafter, Ext.R2(l) final determination order dated 30.6.2005 was passed. Ext.R2(m) is the acknowledgment. It is stated that on account of non-remittance of the amount, a letter was issued to the petitioner requiring him to remit the amount. Thereupon, the petitioner is stated to have given Ext.R2(n) letter. Though the petitioner has filed a reply wherein essentially it is stated that it is his sister who was operating the stage carriage for some time, it is stated that she is about 45 years of age and a patient and her husband is a driver. It is again stated that the petitioner is not the owner or operator and also not an employer. It is also stated that he denies having given any letter to the second respondent admitting liability to pay any contribution to the fund and also not authorised Shri A. R. Prabhakaran Nair or any other person either to admit any liability or sign any paper. It is his case that the said document and letter were created, and that none of the documents produced by the second respondent along with the Counter WPC.3855/09 H 5 Affidavit is signed by the petitioner, nor are they genuine. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Government Pleader and also the learned standing counsel. Petitioner has approached this Court setting up the case that he has nothing to do with the vehicle. After having perused the documents produced along with the Counter Affidavit, I am inclined to think that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. There were provisional determination orders served on the petitioner and final determination orders were subsequently served. Petitioner has paid the amounts in instalments and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to obstruct the recovery proceedings. It is further crucial to note that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge any of the determination orders. A challenge to the revenue recovery notice, which is only consequential to the determination order, will not lie. In such circumstances, I feel that absolutely there is no merit in the case. Having regard to the facts, I feel that the petitioner should be mulcted with costs also. Accordingly, the WPC.3855/09 H 6 Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/=(Rupees Three Thousand) to be paid to the second respondent. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge