IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30456 of 2010 (F) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. NARAYANAN P.A., S/O.AYYAPPAN, POTHUMBUCHIRAKKEL HOUSE, PULOOR, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUDHEER E.B., S/O.BALAN, EZHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR VS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 30456 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are registered owners of contract carriage Buses bearing Nos. KL 8 Y 6600 and KL 8 AH 524, respectively. According to the petitioners, both of them are drivers by profession and they are operating the contract carriages as a self employment venture. Copies of the registration certificates, Permits, and Driving Licences are produced as Exts.P1 to P6. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent is not accepting motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicles, for want of proof regarding payment of contributions to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. It is contended by the petitioners that they were not remitting contributions to the Welfare Fund on the basis of a genuine impression that the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder are not 2 WP(C) No. 30456/2010 applicable to them, because they operating the motor vehicles on a self employment basis. 3. It is conceded that, when contacted, the second respondent disclosed that huge arrears is due towards the Welfare Fund and unless the entire amount is cleared payment, the second respondent could not issue certificate for production before the first respondent. According to the petitioners payment of huge arrears in lump sum is practically impossible and since the petitioners were prevented from remitting the motor vehicles tax, they are prevented from operating the vehicles. The means of livelihood of the petitioners and their families is being deprived of, is the contention. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that, arrears pertaining to the period from 2000 onwards with respect to both the vehicles are pending payment. The total amount in arrears with respect to both the vehicles will come to more than Rs.1 lakh. It is contended that unless the petitioners clear payment of 3 WP(C) No. 30456/2010 arrears due to the Welfare Fund they could not be permitted to pay the motor vehicles tax, going by provisions contained in the statute. 5. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners appealed to this Court to permit payment of arrears due to the second respondent in a phased manner, based on an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges against the liability and that they are prepared to pay off the entire amount due. 6. Having considered the fact that the petitioners are prevented from operating the motor vehicles, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability to the second respondent in a phased manner. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to accept motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicles bearing Nos. KL 8 Y 6600 and KL 8 AH 524, on production of proof regarding payment 4 WP(C) No. 30456/2010 of a sum of Rs.20,000/- each by both the petitioners towards the Welfare Fund arrears on or before 30.10.2010. It is made clear that the respondent will pay off the balance amounts due to the second respondent in three quarterly instalments, before effecting payment of motor vehicles tax due for the ensuing quarters, along with payment of contributions for the current periods. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of amounts due to the second respondent as stipulated above, the second respondent will be free to proceed with all steps of recovery permissible under law. It is also made clear that the first respondent will be prevented from accepting motor vehicles tax for the ensuing quarters without production of proof regarding payment of the respective instalments of contributions, as stipulated above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc