Disposed

Mohammed P.K. v. the District Executive Officer, Kerala

Kerala HC21 Aug 2017WP(C)/26008/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of connected writ petitions by applying the precedent in Ummar v. Joint Regional Transport Officer. Petitioners were directed to satisfy valid demands within one month, with an additional direction granting exemption benefits if EPF coverage for the vehicle is proven.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to satisfy demands within one month; exemption benefit granted if EPF coverage evidence produced.

Mohammed P.K. Vs the District Executive Officer, Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/30TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 26008 of 2011 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MOHAMMED.P.K., S/O.KAMMU, POTTAMMAL KUNJANAMKATTIL HOUSE, PERSANNOOR, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 504

¶11

2. SRI.M.P.SHANAVAS, S/O.MOHAMMED, MELEPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, PAINKANNOOR, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 571

¶12

R1 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD SRI.P.M.HABEEB

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-08-2017, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 8244/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C).No. 26008 of 2011 (A)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-55/7268.
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.63 DATED 9/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-55/7268.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.84 DATED 9/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-55/7268.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KMT/10/SC/001607 DATED 09/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶24

W.P.(C).NO.26008 OF 2011, 8244, 16068, 22408 & 30734 OF 2012, 32413 OF 2014, 21394 & 16065 OF 2015 & 5338 OF 2017

¶25

----------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2017

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The issue in all these writ petitions has already been considered by this Court, and decided in the judgment reported in Ummar v. Joint Regional Transport Officer – [2014 (4) KLT 358] , wherein, this Court, while deciding the issue as to whether a transferee of a vehicle would be liable to discharge the liability of the erstwhile owner of the vehicle in respect of the latter's dues under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (Kerala) found as follows:

¶28

“1. In those cases where the transfers of the vehicles have been effected prior to 07.06.2005, the liability to discharge the welfare fund dues under the 1985 Act would continue to be with the erstwhile owner of the vehicle and accordingly, the authorities under the 1985 Act would have to proceed against such owners for realisation of the dues. As a

¶29

W.P.(C).No.26008 OF 2011 & connected cases

¶30

¶31

consequence, the insistence by the Motor Vehicles Taxation Authorities, for discharge of liabilities of the erstwhile owner, as a precondition for accepting tax from the subsequent owner, would have to be declared as illegal and I do so.

¶32

In cases where the transfer of the vehicle has been occasioned after 07.06.2005, the liability of the erstwhile owner of the vehicle, in respect of the dues under 1985 Act, would be a charge on the vehicle and go along with the vehicle to the transferee of the vehicle. Accordingly, the transferee of the vehicle would be liable to discharge the dues of the erstwhile owner under the 1985 Act. In such cases the action of the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act insisting on a clearance of the erstwhile owner's dues, by the subsequent owner, as a condition for accepting tax from him, is held to be legal and valid and the notices, if any issued in that regard, are sustained.

¶33

In cases covered by (2) above, wherever the transferee has effected payment of dues pertaining to the erstwhile owner, it shall be open to the said transferee to proceed against the erstwhile owner, for realisation of the amounts paid on behalf of the erstwhile owner and in discharge of the latter's liability under the 1985 Act.

¶34

The demands that have been made against the petitioners, which have been held to be legal and valid in this judgment, shall be satisfied by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As it is noticed that, during the

¶35

W.P.(C).No.26008 OF 2011 & connected cases

¶36

¶37

pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have all been permitted to effect payment of Motor Vehicle tax by way of interim orders of this Court and, therefore, no further directions are required in that regard.”

¶38

Resultantly, the aforesaid directions shall govern these writ petitions also, with the additional direction that in cases where the petitioners produce evidence to show that the vehicle was covered under EPF scheme for any particular period, the benefit of the exemption under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (Kerala), shall be granted to the petitioners by the respondents. Subject to the above, the petitioners shall satisfy the demands raised against them within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

The writ petitions are disposed as above.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

¶43

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Mohammed P.K. v. the District Executive Officer, Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed P.K. v. the District Executive Officer, Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jameela Razak Vs T.J.Ajesh

The Authorized Officer Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ii

Kozhikode Jilla Motor & Engineering Workers Union (Citu) Vs Labour Court

V.G.Janardhanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar Vs Ramani Sukumaran

Pushpalatha O Vs the District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.