IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17354 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.S.SHEMITHA, ADVOCATE, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.SAIDUMUHAMMED, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, ALL INDIA RADIO ROAD, P.P.RAMAVARMA PURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR-20. 2. THE DISTRICT EEXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR. 3. SIDIQUE, S/O.SAIDUMUHAMMED, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, P.O.OLLURKARA, THRISSUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VIYYUR, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R2 GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17354/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT 3rd respondent was operating a bus and it seems that he was a defaulter under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare fund Act. 3rd respondent is the brother of the petitioner. Petitioner is living along with her parents in a house constructed in a land covered by Ext.P1 which has been purchased by the petitioner and her parents. Recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 to P5 notices issued by the competent authority under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, are sought to be enforced against the property belonging to the petitioner and it is at that time, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner cannot be considered as a legal representative of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, dues from the 3rd respondent cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner, after filing of the writ petition, filed a Claim Petition before the Deputy Tahasildar and produced it along with I.A.8487/2009 as Ext.P6. W.P.(C).17354/2009 2 3. I heard learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent also. It is necessary that the Deputy Tahasildar takes a decision on Ext.P6. 4. In the circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent, the Deputy Tahasildar, to consider Ext.P6 on merits, after hearing the District Executive Officer of the Welfare Fund Board also and take a decision thereon, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Enforcement of demand notices issued for recovery of any amounts from the 3rd respondent shall be kept in abeyance as regards the properties belonging to the petitioner and her parents, until a decision is taken on Ext.P6 as aforementioned. Thereafter it shall be subject to such decision as such. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs