IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 19053 of 2005(R)
1. TITUS BENNY, S/O. BENNY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THALASSERRY.
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ
For Respondent :SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :29/11/2007
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
WP(C) No. 19053 of 2005
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 29th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing
counsel appearing for 1st respondent.
2. Petitioner has produced only one revenue recovery
notice, namely Ext.P1, which is for recovery of an amount of around
Rs.51,000/-. However, it is seen from the statement furnished by
the 1st respondent that the said amount is only part of the welfare
fund contribution due from petitioner. Statement furnished by the
1st respondent shows that petitioner was, admittedly, in operation of
two stage carriages, bearing Regn. Nos.KL-13 C 9455 and KL-10 B
1751, from 1997 onwards. The first order determining liability was
for a period of three years and the demand is stated to be for
Rs.93,420/-. First respondent has clearly stated in the statement
that all the employees, whose names are furnished in the
statement, had given evidence and even though, petitioner also
appeared, he did not deny the statement filed by the workers. It is
seen from the statement that demand is raised for the years 2000-
01 and 2001-02. Only claim of the petitioner is that he sold one of
the vehicles in August 2001. However, it is seen from the demand
WP(C) No. 19053/2005
-2-
for the year 2001-02 that the amount demanded is only
Rs.28,925/-, which obviously means that the sale of one vehicle is
accepted by the 1st respondent and demand is limited for the other
vehicle and for the sold vehicle only for the period up to the date of
sale. Since demands are based on evidence and petitioner has not
controverted the evidence furnished by the employees, there is no
scope for interference with the recovery proceedings.
3. It is seen from the judgment in connected case, WP(C)
No.15987/06, that the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-13 C 9455 was
seized by the police at some point of time and on account of
default, the Financier approached this Court for release of the
vehicle. This Court directed release of the vehicle, but taking into
account the liabilities of the registered owner, this Court directed
the Financier to pay the arrears of tax and welfare fund dues, and if
the Financier has paid these amounts, then they will be entitled to
proceed to recover the amount from the registered owner, namely
the petitioner. In the circumstances, there will be direction to the
respondents to credit the amount of welfare fund contribution
received from the Financier and recover only the balance amount
from the petitioner. There will also be a direction to the Executive
WP(C) No. 19053/2005
-3-
Officer to verify the date of seizure of the vehicle by the police and
if demand of welfare fund contribution is raised after the seizure of
the vehicle, he will rectify the same by limiting the demand up to
the date of seizure of the vehicle. Petitioner will produce copy of
this judgment for compliance.
4. This writ petition is disposed of leaving freedom to the
respondents to proceed for recovery against the petitioner, if
arrears are not paid.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg