IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14552 of 2008(G)
1. C.K.JYOTHIRAJ, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
4. THE SECRETARY,
5. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMANATHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 14552 OF 2008 G
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage. According to
him, he is remitting tax without fail. When the petitioner
approached the third respondent on 12.2.2008, he was informed
that unless he pays the employer’s contribution for eight months
towards the Employees’ Welfare Fund, the tax will not be
accepted. He was compelled to pay Rs.23,490/= as road tax and
a sum of Rs.8,400/= to the second respondent as contribution for
eight months of the Employees’ Welfare Fund under protest.
Petitioner preferred Ext.P3 representation. Ext.P4 is the
Circular issued, wherein it is indicated that the employer’s
contribution along with arrears is mandatory for accepting road
tax without insisting for payment of employees’ contribution to
the same. It is alleged that it is discriminatory and
unconstitutional. Learned counsel for petitioner challenges
Ext.P4 Circular and seeks a mandamus to the fifth respondent to
accept payment of road tax alone, without making the payment
of employer’s contribution to the Employees Welfare Fund a
mandatory pre-requisite condition.
2. I heard Shri K. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned
WPC. 14552/08 G 2
counsel for the second respondent. The requirement that the
owner of a stage carriage should remit the employer’s
contribution is enjoined under the provisions of a Statute as
brought by an amendment. The Circular essentially purports to
enforce the same. Learned Government Pleader also submits
that, in fact, there is a challenge to the said provision and the
said provision stands upheld by this Court. Therefore, it is not
open to the petitioner to challenge the Circular. A mandamus
cannot be asked to do something contrary to the statutory
provision or a Circular which I have found is not liable to be
interfered with. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and it is
dismissed.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.