IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36674 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. GEORGE ABRAHAM, KANJIRAPALLIL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY.P.O, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. DENNY ABRAHAM GEORGE, NOW RESIDING AT KANJIRAPALLIL HUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY.P.O., THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RVENUE RECOVERY) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682031. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682030. 5. M.K.RAJAN, S/O. K.K.KUNJAN NAIR, MIDHUNAM, MANAKKATTU HOUSE, TEMPLE ROAD, VIDAKUZHA, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683101. 6. VARADARAJAN, S/O. C.G.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, ASWATHY NIVAS, TEMPLE ROAD,VIDAPUZHA, THAIKKATTUKAR, ALUVA-683101. 7. P.PREMKUMAR, ADVOCATE, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 682031. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 36674 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are challenging Revenue Recovery steps initiated against them on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 notices. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to compensation awarded by the MACT, Ernakulam in OP(MV).Nos.2401/97 and 2405/97. Petitioners are owner and driver respectively. The 1st petitioner is the father of the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, the liability was fixed on the 2nd petitioner by virtue of Ext.P2 award only because the claim was not properly contested before the Tribunal. 2. However, since the amount sought to be recovered pertains to award passed by the Tribunal, it is not justified on the part of this court to interdict with the recovery, unless the award is set aside in appropriate statutory proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner had already filed appeals against the awards before this court along with petitions seeking condonation of delay in filing such appeals. It is submitted that the delay condonation applications WP(C) .36674/2010 2 were already numbered as C.M.Application Nos.204/2011 and 205/2011, in appeals filed against OP(MV).No.2401/97 and 2405/97 respectively. Under the above circumstances, limited prayer of the petitioner is only to direct to keep in abeyance the recovery steps for a reasonable time, in order to facilitate the petitioner to move before the appellate court seeking appropriate interim relief. 3. Eventhough notice was issued to respondents 5 and 6 who are the claimants before the Tribunal, nobody enters appearance inspite of service of notice. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the limited relief sought for can be granted. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 4 to restrain from taking any coercive steps of recovery which is initiated on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 notices, for a period of two months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .36674/2010 3