IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3310 of 2009(R)
1. M.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 53
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KMTWWF BOARD
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 3310 OF 2009 R
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage having Ext.P1
regular Permit and Ext.P6 time schedule (in WP(C).
No.38158/08P). It is his case that during the last one year the
said vehicle was not running and kept in G Form due to the
pendency of proceedings before various Authorities and Court
of Law. It is stated that Ext.P4 interim order was passed by this
Court directing that subject to compliance with the conditions in
Exts.P3 and P4 therein and on the petitioner satisfying all other
statutory liabilities, the second respondent therein who is the
Regional Transport Officer shall permit the petitioner to ply the
stage carriage. It is stated that the respondent Regional
Transport Officer is, however, refusing to accept the vehicle tax
for the month of December, 2008 onwards citing the reason that
the petitioner is liable to pay welfare fund for the last seventeen
WPC3310/09 R 2
months before paying tax. The amount alleged is Rs.17,850/=.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
standing counsel for the second respondent and also the learned
Government Pleader. Learned standing counsel would point out
that actually the vehicle was in G Form only for two months. It
is further contended that even if the vehicle is in G Form, that
does not mean that the owner is absolved from the liability to
pay contribution under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare
Fund Act.
3. Section 8(a) creates a duty to pay the money due as
contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare
Fund Act, in order that the tax may be received. The direction
that the petitioner seeks is that he may be permitted to pay only a
portion of the amount and yet the tax may be received. This is
directly opposed to the mandate of the Statute. A writ is sought
for a direction to the Authority to act contrary to the Statute.
This is plainly impermissible. If this is permitted, it can be led
WPC3310/09 R 3
to cases where persons can approach this Court seeking similar
orders which are opposed to law. I am not inclined to entertain
this Writ Petition and it is dismissed.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge