PAULOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the registered owner of stage carriage bus bearing Registration No. KRF 2309. His case is that after 25. 2. 1983 he had nothing to do with the said vehicle; that it was originally sold to one Paily and on his death one of his legal heirs, A. P. Kurian, operated the vehicle for some time and defaulted payments towards contributions under the Motor transport Workers Welfare Fund Act; that subsequently the 5th respondent took over the vehicle; that he is none other than the brother in-law of A. P. Kurian aforementioned and that by creating a fraudulent document forging the signature of the petitioner he has managed to get the ownership also changed in the registration certificate of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent Board for recovery of amounts mentioned in Exts. P4. to P7 notices, the total amount of which comes to Rs. 1,50,196/-, from the petitioner is absolutely unjustified and the prayer therefore is to quash Exts. P4 to P7 demand notices and to prohibit respondents 2 to 4 from proceeding against the petitioner for realising the amounts mentioned therein.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs in the Original Petition. It is pointed out that Exts. P4 to P7, which alone are challenged in the Original petition, are only notices consequent on orders passed by the Board under S. 4 of the Act and that there is also an appellate remedy provided in the Act itself. Counsel further submits that pursuant to the order of this Court in o. P. No. 8311 of 1994, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate authority and the said appeal was also dismissed long back. It is therefore argued that as long as the final determination orders passed by the competent authority have become final, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the Revenue Recovery notices.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the 2nd respondent has made available to me, during hearing today, the relevant file which shows that even the provisional assessments were duly communicated to the petitioner and its objects called for. It was thereafter and based on evidence recorded that the final orders were passed. They were also duly communicated to the petitioner. There was no timely challenge with regard to the final determination orders. This Court took a lenient view in O. P. No. 8311 of 1994 and allowed the petitioner to move the Appellate Forum contemplated under S. 8 (5) of the Act A perusal of the file (page 201) shows that as per order dt. 25. 3. 1999 the government, who is the Appellate Authority, has rejected the said appeal. The said fact is not divulged in the present Original Petition. The effect of dismissal of the appeal is that the final determination order remains operative and what is sought to be quashed in the present Original Petition are not the said final determination orders, but only the consequential revenue recovery notices. When the relevant final determination orders stand valid and unchallenged, notices like Exts. P4 to P7 cannot be successfully impugned. In the present Original Petition the petitioner cannot hence be given any relief.