IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 11166 of 2006(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: PERIYA SWAMY, S/O.SUBBAYYA, AGED 49 YEARS, PUTHEN VEEDU, PATTIKKADU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WOREKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR,. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PEECHI. 4. SARAVANAPRAKASH, S/O.THANKAVEL GOUNDER, M.PUTHUR, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.SMT.I.SHEELADEVI R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.DILIP R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 11166/2006 PETTIIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 27.2.02 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN HE PETITIONER AND ONE SARAVANAPRAKASH EXT. P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.EL.1401/03-05 DT. 1.4.06 FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO R2 AND R3 EXT. P3TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.1(SEC.7) VIDE RR5-1200/05 DT. 29.10.05 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P4TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.1(SEC.7) VIDE RR5-1200/05 DT. 29.10.05 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT /TRUE COPY/ P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11166 of 2006 D ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the first respondent in respect of the liability under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act involving the Stage Carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-8/B 252 and KL-8/W 2508. 2. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was the owner of the above two stage carriages and was operating the said vehicles in the concerned routes on the basis of valid permits. It is stated that the stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-8/B 252, owned by the petitioner, was sold to the fourth respondent as per Exhibit P1 agreement dated 27.2.2002 and ever since the execution of the said agreement, possession and ownership of the vehicle was with the fourth respondent and that petitioner was having no control over the said vehicle. By virtue of the same, it is stated that the petitioner is no more liable to satisfy the liability in respect of any of the employees, as petitioner has not employed any such persons. WPC 11166/06 2 3. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle KL-8/W 2508, which was owned and being operated by the petitioner, was taken into custody on 25.3.2006, stating that a sum of `.15,950/- was due from the petitioner as contribution payable in respect of the said vehicle under the 'Act'. According to the petitioner, he expressed his desire to have the said liability cleared and to have the vehicle released. But the same was not entertained by the authorities concerned, stating that there was some other liability as well. On enquiry, petitioner was given to understand that the respondents had initiated revenue recovery proceedings with reference to the liability to be cleared in respect of the vehicle KL-8/B 252 for the periods 2002-03 and 2003-04 as well, as covered by Exhibits P3 and P4 notices. It is contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the liability as per Exhibit P2 in respect of the former vehicle KL-8/W 2508 and that the petitioner is not liable to meet the liability in respect of the other vehicle KL-8/B 252, which was sold by him to the fourth respondent as early as on 27.2.2002, as per Exhibit P1 agreement. 4. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the ownership and possession of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/B 252 is stated as transferred by the petitioner to the fourth respondent as per Exhibit P1 dated 27.2.2002. However, no legally acceptable material has been produced before this Court as to the intimation to the departmental authorities as prescribed under the relevant Rules. It is seen that the WPC 11166/06 3 name of the defaulter mentioned in Exhibits P3 and P4 notices is none other than the petitioner. It is not stated in the writ petition that the proceedings under the Act, forming the subject matter of Exhibits P3 and P4 notices, were finalised by the authorities under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act without any notice to the petitioner. In other words, it has to be reasonably presumed that a provisional assessment order was passed as contemplated under the said Act, inviting objections from the petitioner and it was only thereafter that the proceedings were finalised, passing final orders. The statute also confers a vested right on the aggrieved party to prefer an appeal under Section 8(5) of the Act before the Government. There is no case for the petitioner that he has pursued any such right by disputing the liability before the assessing authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the liability mulcted upon the petitioner and sought to be realised vide Exhibits P2, P3 and P4 cannot be disputed under any circumstances. 5. It is seen that an interim order was passed by this Court on 12.04.2006 directing the authority concerned to release the vehicle on condition that the petitioner remitted an amount of `.30,000/- before the second respondent, which was made subject to the result of the writ petition. In view of the finding made by this Court fixing the liability upon the petitioner, the balance amount covered by Exhibits P2, P3 and P4 are WPC 11166/06 4 liable to be satisfied by the petitioner forthwith. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is given permission to clear the same by way of 'two' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month and the next one on or before the 30th of the next month. Subject to this, the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in satisfying the liability as mentioned above, it will be open to respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law for realising the entire balance amount. It is also made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to proceed against the party to whom the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/B 252 is stated as sold by the petitioner, if such cause of action is justified and supported by relevant materials and of course, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. (P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge) tkv