IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20961 of 2004(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- WILSON V.J, PANTHANALIL HOUSE, PAZHOOR EAST, PIRAVOM P.O. PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.GEORGE THOMAS SRI.SUNNY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SABU .K. S/O.PAILY KURYAKOSE, KALARICKAL HOUSE, H.NO.437/V, PIRAVOM P.O. PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20961 OF 2004 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this Writ Petition is against the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P1 and P3 notices, for realisation of contributions due to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, with respect to a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL 7/ F-9252. Contention of the petitioner is that, he had purchased the vehicle in question from the 4th respondent only on 12.04.2004. Ext.P1 registration certificate revealed that, the registered owner of the vehicle from 08.05.1998 till 12.04.2004 is the 4th respondent and thereafter the registration was transferred into the name of the petitioner, with effect from 13.04.2004. According to the petitioner steps for recovery initiated against the petitioner for realisation of contributions due for the year 2002-03 is not sustainable, since 4th respondent was the owner during the relevant period. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and the the Government Pleader as well. WPC NO.20961/2009 2 3. Second respondent had filed a statement to the effect that, based on inspection conducted and statements recorded from the workers in the bus service, notice was issued to the petitioner and he attended the enquiry proceedings. Ext.R2(a) is the statement of the petitioner recorded on 29.01.2002 in which he had conceded that the 4th respondent is the registered owner and the petitioner is operating the bus service from April, 2002 onwards. On the basis of the statement a provisional determination order was passed against the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and the same was attempted to be served on the petitioner through registered post. But it was returned unserved with the postal endorsement as 'addressee left out of Kerala'. Since the petitioner has not participated in the enquiry nor filed any objection, final determination was issued against the petitioner and the 4th respondent, imposing liability to the tune of Rs.21,167/-. Since the amount was not paid, Revenue Recovery steps were initiated both against the petitioner and the 4th respondent, is the contention. 4. From the facts and circumstances, it is clear and evident that, there is a final order of determination against the petitioner, and the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of the said order for realisation of the amount covered under that order cannot be assailed unless the petitioner challenged the order of determination in appeal as WPC NO.20961/2009 3 provided under the statute. Further from Ext.R2(a) statement it is evident that, the petitioner had conceded that he was operating the bus service from April 2002 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner could not raise any dispute against his liability in any successful manner. Therefore I find no informity or irregularity to interfere with the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that, the respondents are free to take simultaneous proceedings for realisation of the amount from the 4th respondent. It is further made clear that the disposal of this Writ Petition will not prejudice rights if any available to the petitioner to challenge the order of determination in statutory appeal. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc