IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 8439 of 2005(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.J.SAJI, S/O. E.J.JOSE, AGED 27 YEARS, ERAYANGALATH HOUSE, ELUMANTHAM P.O., WAYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.BINOI GEORGE (CHERUKARA) SRI.VINUCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANADU DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IDAVAKA VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY. 4. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, CALICUT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.8439/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21/04/2003. P2 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 15/02/2005. P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/03/2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8439 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor transport workers welfare fund contribution for the year 2002-03. Even though petitioner has a case that adjudication order is issued without notice to him, learned standing counsel furnished the details of enquiry conducted on 06/09/2003, where it was found that petitioner was operating stage carriage with three workers, whose names are also furnished in Court. Even though notice was issued, petitioner did not turn up and therefore preliminary determination order was issued on 13/01/2004 determining liability at Rs.31,719/-. According to respondent, though notice for final adjudication was issued asking the petitioner to appear on 31/03/2004, petitioner did not chose to appear on that day and therefore, the demand was finalised. Petitioner did not file appeal challenging the final determination order in time and belated appeal filed was rejected as the appellate authority has no power to condone delay. Even though petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as condition for stay, learned standing counsel submitted that petitioner has not remitted the amount. It is not WP(C) No.8439/2005 -2- known whether the full amount is recovered as there was no stay during pendency of the writ petition. If the amount is not paid, then full amount should be recovered from petitioner. Since petitioner has not complied with the interim order, recovery can be continued without any delay. However, if petitioner has a case that he did not have a permit and if the persons for whom demand is raised are not registered workers, then petitioner is directed to approach the District Executive Officer, Wayanad and produce the details for him to verify the records and if workers are not registered workers and petitioner was not in business for the whole year he will make rectification and revise the demand and issue revised proceedings. If any excess is collected in recovery proceedings, petitioner can claim refund of the same amount. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg