IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 19205 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.AGAVALAPPIL KRISHNAN NAIR, MANITHARA DESOM, THANGALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKANCHERY. 3. SULAIMAN, VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, PARUTHYPRA, ENGAKADU, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, SC,KMTWF BOARD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.32805/2002 IN O.P. NO.19205/2002 DISMISSED: 1.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DT.17.2.2000 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND MANOHARAN. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DT.22.1.2000. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RC BOOK OF PETITIONER'S VEHICLE KRH- 8949. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.19205 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Dispute raised by the petitioner is that arrears of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund dues is not payable by the petitioner as petitioner purchased the vehicle only on 17.2.2000. Statement filed on behalf of the first respondent shows that demand for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were raised on third respondent. It is further stated that there is no intimation about purchase of vehicle by the petitioner in 2000. According to the petitioner, he has been paying contribution eversince purchase of the vehicle by him. So far as demand for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 upto date of purchase by the petitioner is concerned, recovery has to be made against third respondent. Second respondent is directed to proceed for recovery of the amount due upto 17.2.2000 from the third respondent. If third respondent has any grievance, third respondent can file appeal against final determination order. If any amount is due from the petitioner for any period from the date of purchase by the petitioner, then such amount can be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner will produce documents pertaining to the vehicle 2 such as RC book, Permit, for the first respondent to determine the amount payable by the petitioner after purchase of the vehicle. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms