IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 3940 OF 2011(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. PAUL JOSEPH, AGED 63, S/O.JOSEPH, ALOOKARAN HOUSE, VELTUKADAVU ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O., PIN-680 307. 2. PAULOSE OUSEPH, AGED 65, PUTHIYIRIKKAL, THATTARIYAN HOUSE, MURINGOOR, KADUKUTTY, PIN-680 307. 3. JOSHY OUSEPH, AGED 68, KAITHARATH HOUSE, CHALAKUDY, THIRSSUR, PIN-680 001. 4. K.L. PAULOSE, AGED 69, KARIMALIKA HOUSE, P.O.NORTH CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307. 5. MOHAMED ALI, AGED 69, PLATHOLLAM HOUSE, P.O. ELINJIPRA, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307. BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHAKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & TAXATION OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 4. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN-680 001. 5. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, TRICHUR-680 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 3940 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are registered owners of tourist taxi vehicles which they are operating by themselves as self employment venture. Contention of the petitioners is that all of them have crossed the age of 60 years. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they will not come within the purview of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and the Scheme formulated thereunder. Hence the petitioners are not liable for payment of contributions to the welfare fund, is the contention. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the above position, motor vehicle tax due with respect to their vehicles were not being accepted by the 4th respondent, insisting on production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the welfare fund. Hence the petitioners seek appropriate direction for acceptance of motor vehicle tax. 3. The question raised now stands covered in favour of the petitioners through a decision of this court in Ta-Aaleemul Islam Trust and others vs. State of Kerala and others WP(C).3940/2011 2 (2009(4)KLT 225). Therefore I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be allowed directing the 4th respondent to accept motor vehicles tax with respect to vehicles owned by the petitioners, without insisting for payment of contributions to the welfare fund. 4. In the result the writ petition is alalowed. The 4th respondent is directed to accept motor vehicle tax with respect to tourist taxi vehicles owned by each of the petitioners, without insisting for payment of the contribution to the welfare fund, provided the petitioners produce proof regarding ownership, driving licence and Badge in order to show that the petitioners are driving those vehicles by themselves and that all of them had crossed the age of 60 years. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).3940/2011 3