IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35952 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MALOT SHAFI, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, K.P.BAMPAN QUARTERS, NEAR SAW MILL, URUVACHAL, CHOVVA POST, KANNUR-600007. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35952 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Grievance is against revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner demanding payment of an amount of Rs.69,265/-, along with collection charges, being amount due by virtue of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in OP(MV).No:1290/2000. The petitioner was implicated in the claim petition under the capacity as owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioner was employed in Gulf countries and according to him no notice was received by him with respect to the proceedings before the Tribunal. He came to know about the award only when notice of recovery as evidenced by Ext.P1 was received. It is stated that all documents pertaining to the vehicle like, Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate, etc: were kept proper and valid. Therefore, according to the petitioner the liability fetched upon him by virtue of the award is highly erroneous. The petitioner had produced copies of all the relevant records in order to support his contentions. 2. It is noticed that the recovery steps are initiated for W.P.(C).35952/09-L 2 realisation of amounts covered under an award of the Tribunal. The petitioner has got an effective remedy against such award, if he is aggrieved. Without setting aside the award the petitioner could not successfully challenge the recovery steps. However, it is stated that the petitioner had already applied for certified copy of the award and that he is taking steps to challenge the award before the appropriate court. Hence, limited prayer of the petitioner is only for a direction to keep in abeyance recovery steps for facilitating him to approach the appellate court, challenging the award. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted with a breathing time to get certified copy of the award and to challenge the same before the appellate court. 4. Therefore the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 for a period of six weeks in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate court challenging the liability cast upon him by virtue of the award. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb