IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30318 of 2007(H) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O RAGAVAN, MEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 5. M.O.GEORGE, S/O PAULOSE, MATHIRAPPILLY HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 6. WILSON, S/O KUNJUVAREED, KARIYATTIL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY P.O., N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.MANOJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30318/2007 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 13/01/2000 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 23/10/01 IN O.P.NO.10137/00. P3: COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DTD. 30/03/2000 IN CMP 16899/00 IN O.P.10137/00. P4: COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DTD. 20/07/2000 IN CMP 16899/00 IN O.P.10137/00F. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/09/00 IN CMP 16899/00 IN O.P.10137/00. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 25/06/02 IN O.P.NO.10137/00. P7: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 18/09/2007. P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 24/09/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): COPY OF DEPOSITION DTD. 22/2/94 OF MR. P.K.ANILKUMAR. R2(B): COPY OF FDO DTD. 30/09/97 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT. R2(C): COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DTD. 31/12/99 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30318 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner along with 5 others was operating a stage carriage on the route Vyppin-Kottayil Kovilakam. After the partners retied from the firm, the petitioner became the sole proprietor of the stage carriage. He sold the said vehicle to respondents 5 and 6 as per Ext.P1 agreement dated 13.1.2000. This writ petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the second respondent to recover the amounts due from the petitioner under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that respondents 5 and 6 are liable and therefore the attachment of his immovable properties is without the sanction of the authority of law. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit and contending inter alia that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner to recover the amounts due under Exts.R2(b) and R2(c) final determination orders issued under section 8 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 relating to the period 1994-1997 and 1997-1999. It is stated that the petitioner was admittedly the owner of the stage carriage and the employer during the said period and therefore he is liable to pay the amount determined in the said orders. 2. The petitioner admittedly ceased to be the owner and employer WPC No.30318/07 2 only from 13.1.2000. Even on the terms of Ext.P1 agreement, the petitioner was liable to discharge the liabilities relating to the period prior to the date of the transfer. Therefore the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the liability which he is bound to discharge under Exts.R2(b) and R2(c) orders should be discharged by respondents 5 and 6. I therefore find no merit in the in the contention raised by the petitioner that for recovery of the monies due from him under Exts.R2(b) and R2(c) orders, the second respondent should initiate proceedings against respondents 5 and 6. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot in my opinion be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner pays the amount demanded in four equal monthly instalments commencing from 15th March, 2011, the second respondent shall not proceed to sell the attached property unless the petitioner commits default in payment of any two consecutive instalments. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.30318/07 3 WPC No.30318/07 4