WILLIAM MOHANDAS Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "M.V.Act, 1988"), refusing transfer of the tractor bearing registration No.KL -09/E -3311 from the name of Co -operative Sugars Limited, to his name. The tractor was owned by the Co -operative Sugars Limited, which later was reconstituted as "Malabar Distilleries Limited"; the Company being a public sector undertaking substantially owned by the Government of Kerala. The Company, which was the registered owner of the vehicle, published a tender for the sale of the same by Exhibit P1 and the petitioner purchased the vehicle, evidenced by Cash Receipt, Exhibit P2, and the Gate Pass issued by the Company for taking the vehicle out of the premises of the Company. However when the petitioner approached the Registering Authority for transfer of ownership in the Registration Certificate, the petitioner was informed that unless a Clearance Certificate issued by the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") under Section 8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (for brevity "Welfare Fund Act") is produced, the transfer of registration will not be effected. The request of the petitioner to accept the tax for the vehicle under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (for brevity "Taxation Act") was also declined on the very same ground. Hence, the petitioner's vehicle is garaged and he is unable to use the same.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sajan Varghese.K. and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent -Board Sri.K.S.Manu as also the learned Government Pleader Sri.M.Muhammed Shafi.

(3.) THE exemption granted under Section 21, is for any tractor, trailer, or tractor -trailer combination solely used for agricultural operations. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the tax itself has been exempted for reason of the use of the vehicle solely for agricultural purposes, then there is no reason why a similar exemption should not be granted under the Welfare Fund Act, going by the definition of the "motor transport undertaking" and the binding precedents on the subject. It is to be noticed that the petitioner herein, is not claiming exemption from payment of tax in respect of the vehicle, but from payment of the alleged Welfare Fund dues that too by the former owner of the vehicle. Under the Welfare Fund Act, "motor transport undertaking" is defined under Section 2(h) as a 'motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward and includes a private carrier'. A learned Single Judge of this Court has interpreted the provisions of the M.V.Act as also the Welfare Fund Act and has held so, in Exhibit P6 judgment: