IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 25855 of 2003(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- K.MADHUSOODANAN, KARUKAYIL VEEDU, PADINJAREKARA, PURATHUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25855/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 12.8.03. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 1.8.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO. 25855 OF 2003 ========================= Dated this the 2nd day of January 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the owner of a stage carriage, was assessed to contribution under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for the period from 1998-2001. He preferred an appeal against the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority for the period 1998-2000 alone. The appellate authority remanded the appeal for fresh assessment, after hearing all affected parties. According to the petitioner, fresh orders of assessment have not been passed by the assessing authority. But demand notices were issued under Exts.P1 and P2. The writ petition was filed at that stage. 2. Learned standing counsel for the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board Sri.P.Ramakrishnan submits that pursuant to the order of remand by the appellate authority, fresh order of assessment was passed by the assessing authority for the period 1998-2000 on 5.2.2003 and for the period 2000-2001 on 22.3.2003. Apparently the order of assessment was sent by registered post and returned to the sender with the endorsement `unclaimed'. There is no mention of these facts in the writ petition filed on 12.8.2003. 3. In circumstances where fresh orders of assessment have been W.P.(C)25855/2003 2 passed subsequent to the order of remand passed by the appellate authority, I find that the writ petition as such challenging Exts.P1 and P2 notices of demand without a challenge against the order of assessment is misconceived and not maintainable. I do not find any grounds to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is bereft of merits and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)25855/2003 3