High Court of KeralaWP(C)/25443/2015disposed of

Riyasudheen v. The District Executive Officer

2015-08-19Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/28TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 25443 of 2015 (E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- RIYASUDHEEN, S/O. JALEEL, 9/224 PARAKUNNAM, PALAKKAD.

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S):

------------------------- THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAKKAD - 678 541.

BY SRI.K.S.MANU, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 25443 of 2015 (E) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11/08/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02/07/2015. EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 11/08/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 14405/2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J --------------------------------------------- WPC No.25443 of 2015 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent Board to issue clearance certificate.

2. According to the petitioner, as per the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme,the arrears of welfare fund contribution would be charged over the old vehicle. The scheme does not provide for enforcement of the charge over the replaced vehicle. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondent in denying clearance certificate. The petitioner was the owner of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-40/C/1947 which does not have any dues towards the first respondent Board. According to the petitioner, there is no justification for denying issue of clearance certificate as sought by the petitioner. The reason stated for denying clearance certificate is not sustainable in law. The petitioner points out that the

WPC No.25443/2015 2 reason stated by the respondent is against the scheme itself. It is with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board.

Considering the nature of submission, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application in the light of Ext.P4, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE