IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 556 of 2010(T) ------------------------ PETITIONE: --------------- K.I.ANWAR BASHA, KAKKAD HOUSE, 31/2163 A KOOTHAPPADY, THAMMANAM, KOCHI-32. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONITHURA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 556 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices issued for realisation of the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner in respect of different periods payable as contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KRH 9464. The petitioner has also got an alternate prayer that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the liability by way of ten equal monthly installments if the other prayer is not liable to be entertained. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent with reference to the statement filed has controverted the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, also producing the relevant documents as Exts. R1(a) to R1(c) justifying the action pursued by the said respondent in finalising the liability, followed by coercive steps invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act. Considering the rival pleadings and submissions, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the first prayer. 3. Considering the second prayer, the learned Standing W.P.(C) No. 556 OF 2010 2 Counsel fairly concedes that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the liability by way of equal monthly installments. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of eight equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 31st of this month to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before 25th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all revenue recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner, pursuant to Exts. P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the repayment as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps from the stage where it stands now for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk