IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25234 of 2005(D)
1. C.K. AJITH, S/O. KUNJUKUTTAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R),
... Respondent
2. VILLAGE OFFICER,
3. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 25234 OF 2005
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing
for the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. Even though
petitioner’s case is that he was not served with final determination
orders for both the years, 2001-02 and 2002-03, standing counsel
submitted the dates on which final determination orders were issued
and the dates on which such orders were served on the petitioner.
Therefore the argument of petitioner that recovery is initiated before
service of final determination orders is not tenable. So far as the
contest against quantum of demand is concerned, petitioner’s case is
that petitioner operated his service on the national highway route under
temporary permits as a stop gap arrangement and therefore demand is
not tenable. Apparently this is a genuine argument. However, I do not
think there is any necessity to remand the case because as against
normal employment of 4 to 5 workers in a bus, the total number of
2
workers for whom demand is raised are only 7 and the number of buses
operated by the petitioner were 4. In the circumstances, demand is
quite reasonable and therefore no interference is warranted in recovery
proceedings. However, petitioner is granted 10 equal monthly
instalments to clear the balance arrears, first of which will be paid on or
before 25th of July, 2008 , and the balance on or before 25th of nine
succeeding months. Recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance for
payments as above, and if petitioner commits default in payment of any
instalment, the instalment facility granted herein will stand
automatically vacated and respondents will be free to proceed for
recovery of the entire amount due. Since counsel for the petitioner
submitted that vehicles of 15 years were abandoned, it is for the
petitioner to raise this contention for later years.
W.P. is disposed of as above.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
3
4