Allowed

M.Abdulla v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC9 Dec 2010WP(C)/28877/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to accept vehicle tax due to alleged welfare fund contribution arrears. Court held contributions are a charge on the vehicle and petitioner should not be prevented from operating if ready to pay current dues while undertaking to clear arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to accept contributions from 02.06.2010 onwards and 1st respondent to accept tax upon proof of payment and undertaking to retain vehicle until arrears cleared.

M.Abdulla Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 28877 of 2010(H)

PETITIONER(S):

ABDULLA M., 7/303, MUDIKKANAM HOUSE, P.O.KANHIRAPOIL, KANHANGAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANHANGAD.

¶14

THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, KASARAGOD.

¶15

U.NARAYANAN, SUNITHA NIVAS, P.O.MORAZHA, MATTAMMAL, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R3

¶17

SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. FOR R3 SRI.NAVEEN. T, SC, KMTWWFB FOR R2

¶18

SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J

¶21

W.P(C) No.28877 of 2010-H

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2010.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage bearing No.KL-11/Q 1611. The ownership of the vehicle was transferred into the name of the petitioner with effect from 2.6.2010. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was purchased from the 3^rd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent is not accepting contributions payable under the provisions of Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, from the petitioner, on the ground that there is arrears due pertaining to the period prior to purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner was disabled from remitting motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicle and that he is prevented from operating the vehicle, is the contention. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is filed seeking directions against the 1^st respondent for accepting motor vehicles tax without insisting for production of proof regarding payment of contributions due to the welfare fund.

¶25

¶26

W.P(C) No.28877 of 2010-H

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that there is an arrear of around Rs.66,000/- due for the period upto 2.5.2010 and further amounts are due for the period thereafter. It is stated that unless the petitioner clear payment of the arrears, the contribution for the current period could not be accepted. Learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that, with respect to contributions payable by him for different vehicles during the period prior to purchase of the vehicle in question by the petitioner, dispute is pending in W.P(C) No.1676 of 2005 and that this Court had granted interim stay against collection of the balance amount. However, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the arrears which is under challenge in the above said writ petition does not pertains to the particular vehicle, which was purchased by the petitioner, and it relates only to other vehicles. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the writ petition filed by the 3^rd respondent relates to the contributions assessed against him with respect to various vehicles.

¶28

However, I am not proposing to resolve the dispute

¶29

W.P(C) No.28877 of 2010-H 3

¶30

regarding liability for payment of contributions for the period prior to purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner. It is evident from Section 10(2) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act that contributions payable to the welfare fund is a charge on the vehicle in question. Therefore, it is evident that arrears if any due with respect to the particular vehicle can be recovered, once the liability is settled.

¶31

Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could not be prevented from operating the vehicle by not accepting the motor vehicles tax, if he is prepared to make payment of contributions due for the period from the date on which the vehicle was transferred into his name. Accordingly, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing such directions without prejudice to rights of the 2^nd respondent to recover the amount of arrears from those who are liable, in accordance with law.

¶32

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to accept contributions payable with respect to vehicle bearing No.No.KL-11/Q 1611 from the petitioner, for the periods from 2.6.2010 onwards. The 1^st respondent is

¶33

¶34

W.P(C) No.28877 of 2010-H

¶35

directed to accept motor vehicle tax due with respect to vehicle, on the petitioner producing proof regarding payment of contributions for the period after 2.6.2010 and also subject to condition of the petitioner filing an undertaking before the 1^st respondent to the effect that he will not transfer ownership or possession of the vehicle until the entire arrears due to the 2^nd respondent is cleared payment.

¶36

It is made clear that acceptance of motor vehicle tax as per the directions contained above will not exonerate the petitioner from liability for payment of arrears of contribution due for any previous period, if he is liable for the same under the provisions of law.

¶37

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶38

M.Abdulla v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Abdulla v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Sree Vidhyadhiraja Vidya Samajam

Zora Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

Treesamma Raju Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Prasanth.N Vs Smt.Niveditha.P.Haran,Secretary,Revenue

Smt.Suhara Vs the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfa

George Thomas Vs Dy.Tahsildar (R/R) and Others