IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 3340 of 2008 (V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- T.P. ROY, S/O. T.J. PETER, THEKKEPURATHUMYALIL HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKUALM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1) THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM 2) THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3) OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI - 17, REPRESENTED BY ITS ITS ACCOUNTS OFICER. 4) MILMA, ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., NO.E-150(D), ERNAKULAM DAIRY, P.B. NO.33, TRIPUNITHURA REPRESENTED BY ITS DAIRY MANAGER. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN, SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN, SC FOR KMTWT SRI. S. GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC FOR PF SRI. B.S. KRISHNAN, SC FOR MILMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 3340 OF 2008 V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is refusing to accept tax in respect of the vehicles owned by the petitioner demanding that a certificate issued by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the dues under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme have been paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's establishment is one covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore the establishment in question is exempted from the provisions of the Welfare Fund Act. On this basis it is argued that the insistence by the 2nd respondent for production of clearance certificate is totally unwarranted. 2. Petitioner has produced Ext. P8, a communication issued by the 4th respondent to the effect that the employees mentioned therein and engaged by the petitioner are covered by the provisions W.P.(C) No. 3340 OF 2008 2 of the E.P.F. Act. In view of the provisions contained in the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, the petitioner is entitled to be exempted from the levy of welfare fund and if that be the factual position, there is no warrant at all for the 1st respondent to insist that the petitioner should produce the clearance certificate issued by the 2nd respondent for accepting the motor vehicles tax. 3. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall accept tax in respect of the motor vehicles owned by the petitioner on condition that the petitioner produces satisfactory proof to the effect that the up-to-date contribution under the E.P.F. Act have been paid by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-