Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.C.SEBASTIAN versus DISTRICT EXE.OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.C.SEBASTIAN v. DISTRICT EXE.OFFICER - WA No. 675 of 2000(U) [2007] RD-KL 12594 (10 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 675 of 2000(U)

1. M.C.SEBASTIAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DISTRICT EXE.OFFICER
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :10/07/2007

O R D E R

H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.

W.A.No.675/2000-C

Dated, this the 10th day of July 2007



JUDGMENT

K.T.Sankaran,J.

The appellant challenges the judgment dated 22nd February, 2000 in O.P.No.11884 of 1992. The Original Petition was filed by the appellant challenging Exhibit P14 order passed by the Government. Exhibit P14 order was passed in an appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging Exhibit P8 order passed by the 1st respondent, the District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, Ernakulam.

2. Exhibit P8 final order was passed by the 1st respondent fixing the liability of the appellant under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. The contention of the appellant is that the workers mentioned in Exhibit P8 order are not his permanent workers. This contention was negatived by the Government in Exhibit P14 order. In the Original Petition, affidavits of respondents 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 were produced to show that they were not permanent workers. The learned Single Judge taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case directed the appellate authority, viz., the Government, to consider the appeal afresh on condition that the appellant-petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the amount demanded.

3. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not running the bus service and that he is in an utter financial difficulty and if the direction to pay Rs.25,000/- is to be complied with, he will lose his right to prosecute the appeal on its merits. W.A.No.675 of 2000 - 2 - Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the direction to deposit Rs.25,000/- has to be modified and the amount reduced to a sum of Rs.15,000/-. In the result, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, confirming the judgment appealed against with the only modification that instead of Rs.25,000/-, the appellant need deposit only Rs.15,000/- in a month's time from today. If such a deposit is made, the Government shall restore the appeal filed by the appellant against the order Exhibit P8 and dispose of the same afresh after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. The appellant shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the State Government. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1956 of 2000 is dismissed. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.T.Sankaran Judge vku/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.