IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 20997 of 2007(Y)
1. T.M.ABOOBACKER, S/O.MOIDEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KUNNATHUNAD.
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE
3. M.H.KOYAKUTTY, CHALAKAKUDY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ELIAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 20997 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash
Ext.P1 and to restrain the respondents from taking
further steps against the petitioner on the basis of
Ext.P1. The main contention raised by the petitioner
is that even though petitioner is not the owner of any
vehicle, revenue recovery proceedings have been
initiated against him for recovery of the dues under
the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme.
2. In view of the averments made in the writ
petition, the impression given by the petitioner is
that he was not the owner of the vehicle and is a total
stranger, but he is being harassed by initiating
revenue recovery proceedings.
3. On account of this the learned counsel for
the 3rd respondent was directed to file a statement
explaining the steps that have been justifying the
action taken against the petitioner. In the statement
so filed, it is stated that it was based on a letter
dated 6.7.92 from one Mr. Kochunni, stating that he had
sold the vehicle to the petitioner, proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner. A provisional
WPC NO 20997/07 Page numbers
determination order was passed on 13.12.93 for the
period 1988-92. It is also stated that against the
said order, objection was filed. Petitioner appeared
before the respondent and deposed that the workers were
only temporary workers. Thereafter based on the
evidence collected, final determination order was
passed on 19.8.95 and that was also served on the
petitioner. Petitioner did not file any appeal against
the final determination order and that the liability
quantified as per the final determination order has
become final.
4. Thus on facts, it is proved that provisional
determination order was passed and an opportunity was
given to the petitioner. Thereafter final determination
order was passed. But he did not challenge any of
these proceeding and therefore the liability has become
final. If that be so, respondents cannot be faulted for
the steps they have taken for recovering the amounts.
The writ petition lacks merit and is only to be
dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO 20997/07 Page numbers
