IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34146 of 2009(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.SUNITHA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT ORMA NIVAS, P.O.MAKKERI, PIN 670 622 KANNUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF BUS NO: KRN 39899) BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA MR.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34146 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 to P3 notices issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realising amounts due under awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, in OP(MV) Nos.560/03, 649/03 and 903/03. 2. Petitioner is the registered owner of one of the vehicles involved in the motor accident, from which a total number of 20 claim cases arose before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. By virtue of the award in the above 3 cases, the insurer of the vehicle was given liberty to realise the compensation amount from the petitioner and from the driver of the vehicle. According to the petitioner she was not having knowledge about the award and only when notices of recovery steps were received, she came to know about the same. It is further submitted that immediately she had applied for and obtained certified copies of the awards and appeals were already filed before this court as per MACA.Nos:2519/09, 155/09 and 2524/09 respectively. W.P.(C).34146/09-K 2 3. It is stated that eventhough stay applications were moved along with the appeals, the same could not be considered by the appellate court since the delay in filing the appeals has to be condoned. The appeals are posted awaiting return of notice in the delay petitions. Since coercive steps are now being pursued for recovery of the amounts, the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this court to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance such steps till the stay petitions are considered by the appellate court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance recovery steps for a reasonable period. 5. Accordingly the respondents are directed to refrain from further steps of recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 to P3 notices for a period of 6 (six) weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb