IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20709 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.M.YOHANNAN, S/O.P.J.MATHAI, AGED 69 YEARS, PERINGATH HOUSE, S-301, SAHYADRI COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, MARUTHA ROAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOHNSON, S/O.KANDAMKULATHY POULOSE, NORTH KAROOR DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MANKULANGARA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST., PIN – 17. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD. 3. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN – 21. R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.20709 of 2010-K ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings as borne by Ext.P1, issued by the second respondent, pursuant to Ext.P2 Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P(MV) No.170 of 2004, where the petitioner was set exparte and the liability to satisfy the due amount to the claimant before the Tribunal has been fixed upon the shoulders of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was only one of the partners of the firm and that no notice whatsoever was served to the petitioner from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The injuries stated as sustained by the claimant in the above O.P (MV), were considered and final Award was passed by the Tribunal fixing the liability upon the petitioner, without actually hearing him; which hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on coming to know of the above proceedings, particularly Ext.P1 Revenue Recovery notice, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 petition to set aside the ex-parte Award, along with Ext.P3 petition to W.P(C) No.20709 of 2010-K 2 condone the delay in filing the same and that they are still pending. It is stated in para 5 of the Writ Petition that, the first respondent herein, who was a claimant before the Tribunal has approached this Court by filing M.A.C.A No.2728 of 2009 for enhancement. In the said circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner intends to file an appeal, along with a petition to condone the delay and a petition for stay, to be considered along with the above appeal, which is stated as admitted and pending. 4. In the above circumstances, it is observed that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings, as above, in accordance with law. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, the coercive proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab