High Court Kerala High Court

T.K.Radhakrishnan vs Joint Regional Transport Officer on 16 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.K.Radhakrishnan vs Joint Regional Transport Officer on 16 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1989 of 2008(J)


1. T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.T.PRASANNA,

                        Vs



1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/01/2008

 O R D E R
                                ANTONY DOMINIC, J.



                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                           W.P.(C) No. 1989 OF 2008 J

                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



                       Dated this the  16 th January, 2008



                                   J U D G M E N T

Petitioner complains that motor vehicle tax in respect of the

vehicle is not accepted. According to the petitioner refusal of

acceptance of tax is for the reason that the petitioner has not paid

the contribution due under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’

Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (for short the ‘Act’). It is contended that the

vehicle in question is used for catering service and that is not

included among the categories mentioned in Ext. P4 and hence

contribution is not payable.

2. I am not in a position to accept the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioners. The reason for non-acceptance

of tax is non-payment of contribution. Motor transport

undertaking has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Act as a motor

transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or

both by road for hire or reward and includes a private carrier. In

WPC No. 1989/08 -2-

this case the petitioners cannot contend that the vehicle belonged to

them does not come at least within the category of private carrier.

If that be the position, the petitioners cannot claim that the vehicle

used for catering service is excluded from the provisions of the Act.

Further on a perusal of Ext. P4, I do not find any provision excluding

vehicles used for catering services as contended by the petitioners.

If that be so, the respondents are right in refusing to accept tax in

view of the default committed by the petitioners for making

payment of contribution under the Welfare Fund Scheme.

Writ petition flails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC

JUDGE

jan/-