IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 512 of 2007()
1. T.P.MOHANDAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :13/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, Ag. CJ. & P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WRIT APPEAL No. 512 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
KOSHY, Ag.CJ,
Government of Kerala, in an appeal from an order of the
District Eexecutive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare
Fund Board, passed Ext.P14 order. Final determination order was for
the period from 1990-91 till 1994-95. Five orders were questioned by
the third respondent before the Government. Sri.T.P. Mohandas, third
respondent, appellant herein, was absolved of his liabilities for payment
to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund in respect of stage
carriages KRO-162, KLI-7147 and KCE-7730 fixed by the District
Executive Officer, Kottayam in the final determination orders. That
order was challenged in the writ petition by the Welfare Fund Board.
The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appeal, which
resulted in Ext.P14 order may be time barred. But the learned Judge
found that the appeal was entertained by the Government and the
person in ultimate charge of the affairs of the bus can be charged with
the liability. The third respondent, who did not challenge Ext.P14 order
WA.512/2007. 2
contended that he had sold the vehicle before the assessment period. The
learned Judge disposed of the writ petition and held as follows:
“The person in ultimate control of the vehicle is
responsible to pay the contribution. It cannot be said that the
permit holder does not have control over the vehicle in the facts
and circumstances of the case. Yet another contention of the
third respondent is that there were two others involved in the
operation. Apparently, the petitioner might have proceeded
against those persons and realised the contribution also. If that
be so, the third respondent need not be disturbed.
Therefore, this original petition is disposed of making it
clear that Ext.P14 order passed by the Government shall not
stand in the way of the petitioner realising any contribution in
respect of the vehicles referred to above, from the permit holder
of the vehicle during the relevant period, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case.”
2. Third respondent filed the writ appeal. There was no
finding by the learned Single Judge that proceedings should be taken
against the third respondent. The learned Judge did not set aside Ext.P14
order, but made it clear that Ext.P14 shall not stand in the way of the Board
realising any contribution in respect of the vehicles from the permit holder
of the vehicles during the relevant period. If the third respondent was not
WA.512/2007. 3
the permit holder of the vehicles or in control of the vehicles during the
relevant period, no proceedings can be taken against him for recovery of
the arrears. We make it clear that while implementing the judgment and
realising the arrears from the person in charge of the vehicle or the permit
holder, whoever it may be, they will be entitled to get notice of show cause
from the authority concerned followed by an opportunity for hearing.
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
J.B. KOSHY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
sb.