IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5224 of 2011(C) ----------------------------------- EP.94/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. HASSAN KHANI RAUTHER,S/O.MUHAMMED MAITHEEN RAUTHER,AGED 36 YEARS,VALLIVILAYIL VEEDU, PAZHAKKULAM,ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SARAFUDEEN,S/O NINAR KANNU,AGED 38 YEARS SHAMILA MANZIL,PALMEL,MAVELIKKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD,(MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LTD),MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, KURIAN CHAMBERS,OPP:SARITHA THEATRE,BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM.(REP;BY THE M.D.GEORGE ALAXANDER MUTHOOT WHO IS REP;BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER & ASST.MANAGER, MR.SHAJEE.R.S,34,RAGHVAS COTTAGE,PERUMPUZHA,PIN-691 504 2. K.S.DILIP,ARBITRATOR,32/2291,B 5, VASUDEV COMPLEX,PALARIVATTOM,COCHIN-682025. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-671543. 4. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTELD BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT WP(C).No. 5224 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T When this case came up for admission on 28.02.2011, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore the case was posted today. Today also there is no representation. In view of this, the writ petition will stand dismissed for default. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE smt ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5224 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioners. In this writ petition the prayer sought is to quash Ext.P2 award passed by the 2nd respondent. The award is passed under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If a person is aggrieved by the terms of the award passed under the said Act, the remedy available to the person is also under the Act itself. 2. However, the counsel for the petitioners submits, though a remedy has been provided under S.34 of the Act, the said remedy should be sought within the time specified in the Act itself. It is stated that the time specified has expired and that relief also cannot be sought at this distance of time. It is therefore contended that the writ petition is the only remedy. 3. However I am not in a position to accept this contention. It is to be remembered that this is not a case where W.P.(C) No. 5224 OF 2011 -:2:- the statute did not provide remedy to a person like the petitioner. This is a case where by their own laches, petitioners have lost the remedy. In such cases, litigants like the petitioners cannot be permitted to seek remedy by taking recourse of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is not maintainable and it is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-