High Court of KeralaWP(C)/13268/2014dismissed

Sureshbabu K.P. v. Joint Transport Officer, Kdungallur

2015-09-10Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/19TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 13268 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ SURESHBABU K.P., S/O. PARAMESWARAN, KALATHERI HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTOM, MATHILAKOM, KODUNGALLUR.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

1. THE JOINT TRANSPORT OFFICER/ TAXATION OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR-680644.

2. THE DISTRICT EXCUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR-680001.

3. THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, M/S. MUTHOOT LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED, PALAKKAD-678001.

R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR R2 BY SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 13268 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- P1.

TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL-9 U 7082.

P2.

TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL-9 U 7082 SHOWING THE PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE.

P3.

TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 22-5-2014.

P4.

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC 15188/13 DATED 17-6-13. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.13268 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a medium goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-9 U 7082, has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation and to accept motor vehicle tax in respect of the aforesaid vehicle without insisting for payment of welfare fund contribution for the period prior to 29.2.2012, the date on which the petitioner became the owner of the vehicle.

By order dated 27.5.2014, this Court passed the following interim order:- "The Welfare Fund contribution shall be received w.e.f. the date of purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner and tax shall also be accepted provisionally subject to the result of the Writ Petition."

3. Today, when the case was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the issue

raised in this writ petition is covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Ummar v. Joint Regional Transport Officer [2014 (4) KLT 358]. Paragraph 3 of the judgment reads thus:

"3. The effect of the amendment brought about by the Amendment Act of 2005 was that, from 7.6.2005, the production of receipt of remittance of welfare fund contribution became an essential precondition for making payment of tax in respect of the vehicle, under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. Further, the arrears of amounts due from employers came to be recognised as a charge on the vehicle, in the event of a transfer by the employer of vehicles that were owned by him, and in respect of which there were amounts due under the 1985 Act. The resultant position was that, in respect of transfer of vehicles, effected by persons who had defaulted on payment of their dues under the 1985 Act, prior to 7.6.

2005, the liability to pay the dues would continue to be with the transferor and would not pass with the vehicle to the transferee of the vehicle. For those transfers effected after 7.6.2005, however, the liability of the transferor under the 1985 Act, came to be recognised as a charge on the vehicle, by virtue of the amended S.10 of the Act, and consequently, would pass on to the transferee of the vehicle for the purposes of recovery under the 1985 Act.

welfare fund dues of the erstwhile owner, would, therefore, have to be examined in the light of the above statutory changes and the enquiry would have to be as to whether the transfer of the vehicle took place before the date of the amendment to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 or after that date. In my view, in cases where the transfer of the vehicle was effected prior to 7.6.2005, the liability of the erstwhile owner of the vehicle in respect of the amounts due under the 1985 Act would continue to be with him and the authorities would not be justified in proceeding against the transferee for realisation of those dues. In the case of transfers effected after 7.6.

2005, however, the transferee of the vehicle would be liable to discharge the liability of the erstwhile owner of the vehicle in respect of the latter's dues under the 1985 Act. No doubt the transferee, in such cases, would have a right to proceed against the erstwhile owner for realisation of the amounts paid on his behalf.

1. In those cases were the transfers of the vehicles have been effected prior to 7.6.2005, 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 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.

2. In cases were the transfer of the vehicle has been occasioned after 7.6.2005, 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 Vehicles 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 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.

Since the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered against the petitioner, I find absolutely no ground to grant the reliefs prayed for.

In the result, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj