IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 7442 of 2006(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SONIA SIBICHEN, KUDAKKANCHIRA VEEDU, HILL PALACE ROAD, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SC SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN R2 AND R3 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ;AGREEMENT OF SELLING THE VEHICLE DATED 1.3.2002 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION ORDER WITH ITS NO. EE 923/PDO/02-04 DATED 12.9.2005 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.2.2006 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ;DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.2.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 7442 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Writ Petition is filed challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund contribution for the period 2002-04. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that petitioner was operating owner during 2001- 02 and demand in fact made for that year is not challenged. Consequently provisional and final determination orders are issued for the years 2002-04. According to the petitioner, final determination orders are not received by him. However, first respondent's case is that orders sent were returned "unclaimed". If demand was raised for the year 2001-02, then workers who were registered with the Organisation, and for whom demand was raised, would be in a position to inform the first respondent as to who were the owners for the later two years. I feel one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to give address of the purchasers of the vehicles with proof thereof to the first respondent and it is for him to modify the assessment to the extent 2 possible. In any case demand should be raised on all the registered or operating owners for the period commencing from 2001-02 which the first respondent is directed to make within three months from now. Interim order will continue for another three months from now, and thereafter recovery will be made based on revised orders to be issued by the first respondent. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3