IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24654 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.PARACKAL DISTRIBUTORS, MANIKKATH ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 16, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOSSY THARIAN PARACKAL. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ TAXATION OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS, WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN – SC GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 24654 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The challenge involved in this Writ Petition is in respect of the steps taken by the respondents for realisation of the amount allegedly payable by the petitioner as contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having two goods carriages bearing Nos. KL 07-BK-7487 and KL 07-BJ- 4328, which are being used for the purpose of transporting sanitary wares and tiles. It is stated that the petitioner has employed drivers to drive the above vehicles and they are the employees covered under the Employees Provident Fund Schemes and the Gratuity Schemes which is very much evident from Ext.P6 and P7 certificates issued in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that, since the employees are covered under the EPF Act/Scheme, there is a clear provision for exemption and that they are not liable to be covered again under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act/Scheme. It is stated that the issue is squarely covered by the W.P(C) No. 24654 of 2010-F 2 decision rendered by this Court reported in Hymavathi Vs. Special Deputy Tahsildar [2008 (3) KLT 807]. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the case put forth by the petitioner appears to be quite sustainable and the issue is covered by the decision cited supra. Accordingly, the steps taken by the respondents demanding contribution to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund are declared as not correct or sustainable and the petitioner does not have any necessity to produce any 'exemption certificate' from the second respondent, for effecting payment of tax in respect of the vehicles as mentioned hereinbefore. 5. In the above circumstance, the first respondent is directed to accept the tax in respect of the vehicles bearing No.KL07/BK 7487 and KL 07/BJ 4328 belonging to the petitioner as mentioned above, without insisting to produce any certificate of clearance from the first respondent. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ab