Siri Jagan, J.

In all these cases, except O.P.No.29642/2002, the issue involved is the same, namely, whether circular issued by the Commissioner directing insistence of production of certificate from the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board regarding clearance of liability under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for effecting transfer of registration of ownership of stage carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act is unsustainable under law. Therefore all these cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Ext.P1 in O.P.No.2626 of 2003, from which W.A.No.335/2003 arises, is the impugned circular. As is clear from the said circular itself, the same was issued as per directions of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext.P2 order in O.P.No.29642/2002, which original petition is also one of the cases under consideration in this batch, although the issue involved therein is slightly different. In Ext.P2 order, the direction was in the following terms.

“It has come to the notice of this Court that stage carriages are transferred from one registered owner to another without the regional Transport Officer ensuring discharge of the liability to the Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board by the seller/transferor, who was operating the vehicle. Therefore the Transport Commissioner is directed to issue a circular to all the RTOs to require clearance certificate from the concerned District Officer of the Motor Workers Welfare Fund Board on the discharge of liability by the transferor as a condition for effecting transfer of any stage carriage from one operator to another. As this will avoid proceedings against the vehicle and the transferee, the Transport Commissioner is directed to issue circular without any delay.”

3. We feel that it is not necessary to go into the issue in detail because another Division Bench of this Court in which one of us was a party had already dealt with a similar question in the decision of Regional Transport Officer v. Binu, reported in 2006 (1) KLT 188 and held that insistence of clearance of arrears of tax under Kerala motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 by owner of a motor vehicle in respect of one motor vehicle is permissible for effecting transfer of ownership under the Motor Vehicles act of another vehicle owned by the same person. In that decision, after reviewing the provisions of the two complementary enactments, this Court in paragraph 7 held thus:

“7. We are of opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct. The State cannot be compelled to act to its detriment, while performing functions under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, that too in respect of acts which would render the remedies available to it for enforcing demand for arrears of tax otiose. By making endorsements in the registration certificates recognizing the transfer of the another vehicle belonging to the defaulter, the State would be deprived of one of the modes of recoveries of arrears of tax in respect of the other vehicle owned by the same person. The whole object of provisions like Rr.9, 13, 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules is to ensure easy realization of tax due to the State. Attachment and sale of defaulter’s movable property, which includes another vehicle belonging to the defaulter, is one of the modes of realization of public revenue available to the State under S.5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Once the ownership of that vehicle is allowed to be transferred, that too by the act of the State itself, the State would be deprived of a movable asset of the defaulter which could be proceeded against. If the defaulter does not possess any other asset, then the State would be deprived of its revenue for ever. In such circumstances, the state cannot be compelled to act to its own detriment by directing it to make endorsement regarding the transfer in the registration certificate. Such a view is also not without the backing of provisions of law also as we would pr