IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32767 of 2010(U)
1. RADHAKRISHNA KURUP, S/O. NARYANAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
4. D.ANILKUMAR, S/O. DEVADASAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :04/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.32767 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Petitioner had purchased a contract carriage
vehicle bearing No:KL-17/9595 from the 4th respondent,
on 4.3.2009, by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement. Ownership
of the vehicle was transferred into the name of the
petitioner as evidenced from Ext.P2 Registration
Certificate, with effect from 1.4.2009. Permit was also
issued in the name of the petitioner as per Ext.P3, with
validity from 1.4.2009 onwards. Ext.P4 is the copy of
the Insurance Certificate in the name of the petitioner.
From Ext.P5 receipt it is evident that the petitioner had
remitted contributions due to the Kerala Motor
Transport Workers Welfare Fund for the period upto
March 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that on the
basis of Ext.P5 the 1st respondent had received Motor
Vehicle Tax due on the vehicle for the period upto the
last quarter. Grievance of the petitioner is that tax due
for the current quarter is not being accepted for want of
W.P.(C).32767/10-U -2-
proof regarding payment of contributions to the Welfare
Fund. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is not accepting
the contributions now, on the allegation that previous owner
had defaulted payment of contributions for previous
periods, before the District Executive Officer of the Welfare
Fund at Kollam. According to the petitioner, the non-
acceptance of contribution by the 3rd respondent as well as
non-acceptance of motor vehicle tax by the 1st respondent is
creating impediment in operation of the vehicle and
petitioner is put to severe prejudice.
2. Inspite of notice served on the Standing Counsel
nobody appeared on today for respondents 2 & 3. It is
evident from the relevant provisions that the arrears of
contributions if any due is a charge on the vehicle, and the
liability on the transferee owner is not exonerated. Under
such circumstances I am of the view that there is no reason
for non-acceptance of contributions from the petitioner for
the current periods, especially in view of the fact that
contributions were already accepted from him, as evidenced
from Ext.P5. The respondents 2 & 3 will be always at
liberty to determine the amount and the liability, and can
W.P.(C).32767/10-U -3-
take steps for recovery as permissible under law. But there
is no justification in depriving the rights of the petitioner to
operate the vehicle for any reason of the arrears.
3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition
is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to accept
contributions payable with respect to the vehicle for the
period after March 2010, from the petitioner, without
prejudice to rights to recover arrears if any due from those
who are responsible under law. The 1st respondent is
directed to accept the motor vehicle tax, on producing proof
regarding payment of contributions for the period from
March 2010 onwards.
4. It is made clear that, acceptance of contributions
to the Welfare Fund as well as the acceptance of motor
vehicle tax on the basis of the above direction will be
without prejudice to rights of the authorities to recover
arrears if any due, in accordance with law.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb