IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5333 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOHN, THADATHU KALAYIL, KUZHIKKALA P.O., KOZHENCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR),PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SRI.K.HARILAL, SC FOR KMTWF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5333 OF 2008 I ==================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for realising the dues under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. Although it is the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was sold way back in 1988, fact remains that proceedings were initiated and the final determination order was passed, as per which the petitioner is liable. Though the petitioner had filed an appeal that also was dismissed and thus the determination made against the petitioner has become final. It is to realise the balance amount that is due that now recovery proceedings have been initiated by Ext.P4. 2. Although the counsel for the petitioner raised contentions disputing the very liability of the petitioner, I cannot accept these contentions since the final determination order has WPC 5333/08 :2 : become final in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed. 3. Then it was contended that the payments made by the petitioner have not been given credit. That also is disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the remittances made and the balance liability of the petitioner. Thus on both counts, the proceedings will have to be upheld. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to pay the amount in instalments. Having regard to the financial constraints of the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel, I feel that the petitioner should be permitted to pay the amount demanded by Ext.P4 in instalments. 5. Accordingly, I direct that the amount that is sought to be recovered by revenue recovery proceedings by issuing Ext.P4 will be permitted to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments, first of which will be payable in the first week of March, 2008 and the subsequent instalments payable in the 1st week of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, further WPC 5333/08 :3 : proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will be deferred and in case default is committed, respondents will be free to continue with recovery action. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp