IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19241 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.GOKULDAS, VADAKKEVEEDU, KALLEPPULLY P.O., KAVASSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAKKAD. 3. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, BALAMANDIRAM, PADOOR, KAZHANI, ALATHUR. *ADDL:R4:- PUSHPA JOY W/O. C.D. JOY, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, P.O. THOYAKKAVU, THRISSUR. (*IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A.15234/09 DT.8.12.09) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R2 SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.APARNA RAJAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI. SAJU J. VALIYARA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON 10/12/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).19241/09-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DT.25.10.03 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.4.7.09 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C).NO.30898/09 DT.20.10.09 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R3(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DT.14.8.04 EXT.R4(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT EXT.R4(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT SHOWING REPLACEMENT OF THE DT.4.3.2006 EXT.R4(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTION FROM JUNE 2005 TILL SEPTEMBER 2009 (8 RECEIPTS) EXT.R4(D):- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE SHOWING TRANSFER OF VEHICLE OF THE PETITIONER'S NAME. EXT.R4(E):- PHOTOSTAT COPY SHOWING THE TRANSFER TO AVARACHAN EXT.R4(F):- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF SRI.AVARACHAN SOLD THE VEHICLE TO ANIL P. SIMON ON 5.8.05 EXT.R4(G): TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER OF ENDORSEMENT OF PETITIONER'S NAME W.E.F. 15.2.06 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.19241 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. This writ petition is filed seeking direction against the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the vehicle bearing Regn: No:KL-9/J-4403 for realisation of arrears of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Averment in the writ petition is that the vehicle in question was transferred by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, on 25.10.2003, by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent failed to effect transfer of ownership of the vehicle and he has also defaulted payment of contributions due to the Welfare Fund. It is alleged that recovery steps were initiated against the petitioner for realisation of an amount of Rs.72,986/-, along with future interest, being dues to the welfare fund, for the period during 2005-06. It is further stated that the petitioner was threatened with coercive steps of recovery and he had submitted Ext.P2 to the 2nd respondent along with copy endorsed thereon to the 1st respondent, specifically requesting to take distress action against the vehicle, pointing out that the vehicle in question is plying on a specific route. Grievance voiced in this writ petition W.P.(C).19241/09-A 2 is that without considering such request made in Ext.P2, coercive steps are being threatened against the petitioner. 2. Eventhough notice was issued to the respondent and the 3rd respondent had received notice in the writ petition, there was no appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent, till 18.11.2009. Therefore this court had issued an interim order on 18.11.2009 directing the 1st respondent to take the vehicle into custody along with the original records of registration. Subsequently the 3rd respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit on 9.12.2009 admitting that he had purchased the vehicle from the petitioner and alleging that he had sold the vehicle thereafter to one Sri.C.T. Thomas as per agreement produced as Ext.R3(a). 3. The person, who is the present owner in possession of the vehicle, has got himself impleaded in the writ petition as additional 4th respondent. He had filed a counter affidavit along with a copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle. It revealed that ownership of the vehicle was transferred from the name of the petitioner as early as on 15.7.2005 to the name of one Sri. Avarachan. Subsequently there occurred another transfer from the name of Sri. Avarachan to Sri. Anil P. Simon, with effect from 5.8.2005. It is from the above said Sri. Anil P. W.P.(C).19241/09-A 3 Simon that the ownership got transferred into the name of the additional 4th respondent, with effect from 10.2.2006. It is contended by the 4th respondent that he is regularly paying Motor Vehicle Tax as well as amounts of contribution due to the Welfare Fund. Ext.R4 series receipts were produced in this regard which will reveal that contributions due to the Welfare Fund was paid by him, from the month of June 2005 onwards. From Ext.R4(a) and (b) documents produced, it is revealed that the vehicle in question is covered by a stage carriage permit which is issued in favour of the 4th respondent. Under the above circumstances the 4th respondent alleges that the attempt of the petitioner, in collusion with the 3rd respondent, is intended merely to harass the 4th respondent and only to see that the 4th respondent is clearing payment of arrears if any due to the welfare fund for which the petitioner is liable. Due to the abrupt seizure of the vehicle severe prejudices were caused to the 4th respondent, is the contention. 4. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations with respect to collusion between him and the 3rd respondent. Contention of the petitioner is that even assuming that the additional 4th respondent is now in ownership and possession of the vehicle, arrears if any due to the welfare fund W.P.(C).19241/09-A 4 will be a charge on the vehicle, as per the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. 5. It is noticed that, there is clear evidence to the effect that the 4th respondent had paid contributions with respect to the vehicle from the month of June 2005 onwards. Therefore even if there is any arrears with respect to any period prior to that, the default is committed only by the previous owners namely, Sri. Anil P. Simon and Sri. Avarachan. The specific averment in the writ petition is that the contribution due to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund is in arrears for the period from 2005-06 and that the recovery proceedings is initiated against the petitioner, for realisation of the arrears with respect to that period. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent on the basis of instructions submitted that recovery steps against the petitioner is initiated for realisation of Welfare Fund dues for the period from April 2003 to May 2005. From Ext.R4(e) it is evident that the registration of the vehicle was transferred from the name of the petitioner with effect from 15.7.2005. Therefore it is evident that the petitioner continued as registered owner of the vehicle till such date only. Hence it is clear that the petitioner has defaulted payment of Welfare Fund dues for the period from April 2003 till May 2005, during the W.P.(C).19241/09-A 5 period for which he was the registered owner. Therefore he could not shirk liability with respect to payment of those amounts. 6. On the other hand the attempt made through this writ petition seems to be that the vehicle is somehow taken into custody so that he can get rid of the liability by coercing the present owner to make payment of the amounts. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not produced any notice issued by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, along with the above writ petition. Therefore the allegation of the 4th respondent regarding collusive attempt between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent seems to have some force considered on the basis of the facts and circumstances. 7. Under the above circumstances I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition in order to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The 1st respondent is directed to release the vehicle forthwith to the additional 4th respondent. 8. It is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way prejudice the rights of the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with steps for realisation of arrears due to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, against the petitioner, W.P.(C).19241/09-A 6 or the person who is in ownership and possession of the vehicle or against the vehicle itself, as permissible under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb