Judgment :- 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. 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 presently discuss.” In the same decision at paragraph 12, it was further observed as follows:- “12. We are of the firm opinion that defaulters of tax cannot be allowed to escape from their liabilities to pay tax by compelling the State to act to its detriment exercising statutory functions at least under complementary laws on the same subject matter, in favour of the defaulters, if such exercise would deprive the State of any mode of recovery of the revenue available to the State. Any interpretation on the provisions which facilitates the defaulters to evade public revenue would be against the spirit of law, as is clear from the Scheme of the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder, Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Rules made thereunder and the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which make elaborate provisions to safeguard the interest of the revenue even against the ordinary laws relating to contract and property . . . . . .” 4. It is true that the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act does not contain Provision similar to those in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. But, it has to be noted that recovery of arrears of dues under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, can be made as arrears of land revenue by virtue of Section 10 of the said act. The Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act is a welfare legislation for promoting the welfare of motor transport workers in the State of Kerala. It certainly is a law complementary to the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, circumstances point to a situation on all fours with that of the decision in Binu’s case (supra). Therefore, the law laid down in the said case is squarely applicable to the situation at hand. 5. Incidentally, we also note that a learned Single Judge had, in the decision of Anthroyos v. R.T.O., Idukki, reported in 2005 (4) KLT 659, had come to the same conclusion on a different reasoning based on Section 14 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act treating the transfer as one for defeating revenue recovery proceedings. We feel that the reasoning is certainly a plausible one, and would apply to the present case also since, under Section 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, attachment and sale of the petitioner’s stage carriage would be one of the mode of recoveries of the dues under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.335/2003 wanted us to hold that since other properties of the appellant are available for proceedings against under the Revenue Recovery Act, if need arises, there is no necessity to insist on clearance of arrears under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for effecting transfer of the registration of ownership of the vehicle. Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.335/2003 wanted us to hold that since other properties of the appellant are available for proceedings against under the Revenue Recovery Act, if need arises, there is no necessity to insist on clearance of arrears under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for effecting transfer of the registration of ownership of the vehicle. We are afraid that the same cannot be accepted as a principle of law in so far as situations where the only property of the dafaulter is the stage carriage sought to be transferred itself is not beyond comprehension. 7. We also note that in separate judgments in O.P.No.14294/1992 (reported in 1993(1) KLT 75), O.P.No.4224/1997, O.P.No.8156/1997, learned Single Judges had taken a different view, which cannot be held as good law in view of the Division Bench decision in Binu’s case (supra). 8. In view of our above finding, we do not find any merit in any of the writ appeals and original petitions, which are, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. O.P.No.29642 of 2002. 9. It is pursuant to interim orders in this case that Ext.P1 circular was issued. However, in that case, the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle had approached this court against revenue recovery against the vehicle for arrears of welfare fund dues and no question of transfer of registration of vehicle was involved. However, in view of the fact that the vehicle, which was sized has been ordered to be released subject to certain conditions by order dated 11-10-2002, we dispose of this original petition in terms of the interim order. W.P.(C) No.35404 of 2005 10. This writ petition was filed by subsequent purchaser of the vehicle on 2-6-2005 apprehending seizure of the vehicle for recovery of welfare fund dues for periods prior to the purchase. In this case transfer of registration has been effected. However, we make it clear that if efforts of respondents 1 and 2 to recover the dues from respondents 3 and 4, the former owners of the vehicles, do not succeed, it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the vehicle in which case it would be open to the petitioner to proceed against respondents 3 and 4 appropriately. With this clarification, the writ petition is disposed of.