IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8408 of 2009(U) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ASST. BRANCH MANAGER S. VIBHU. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. SMT.MADHURI ANAND RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. BENNY THOMAS, NEDIYAVILA, KIZHAKKETHIL, NARIYAPURAM POST, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIKKODE. R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8408 OF 2009 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Non-Banking Financial Institution. According to it, it had extended financial assistance to the first respondent for purchase of a Stage Carriage No.KL-3/K-16. Ext.P1 is the copy of the RC Book. Exts.P2 and P3 are recovery notices for non-payment of the contribution towards the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund, for which there was default committed by the first respondent. Ext.P4 is the Mahazar under which the vehicle was attached for non-payment of the contribution by the first respondent. The first respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.31122/08. He had challenged Ext.P5 sale notice therein. Petitioner, though sought to be impleaded, the application was rejected. It was noted in the said Judgment that there was no challenge to the final determination orders. Petitioner in this case challenges Ext.P5 and seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to proceed WPC.8408/09 U 2 against the Stage Carriage No. KL-3/K-16. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an error and the only prayer should be understood as that the petitioner is not to be proceeded against and that the recovery proceedings may not be taken against the stage carriage in question. 2. I heard Shri C. Harikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. One of the contentions taken is that the Agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent has been terminated and the financier has crept into the shoes of the owner, and that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to challenge the final determination order. 3. The final determination order decides the rights and liabilities of the owner and the workers. I fail to see how a person like the petitioner can interpose and seek to challenge the final determination order. By virtue of the provision of the Act, the vehicle which was the subject matter of the proceeding or any other vehicle belonging to the owner can be proceeded WPC.8408/09 U 3 against. It is following the said principle that I have dismissed W.P.(C). No.31122/08. I fail to see how it is open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P5 which is a notice relating to attachment of the movables issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. I see no merit at all in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge