IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20451 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DEVADAS, S/O. DARMAN, ATHIYARATH HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA, MOOTHAKKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIST. COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DIST, ERNAKULAM, 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DIST, 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAG E,ERNAKULAM DIST. 4. UNITED INDIA INSURNACE COMPANY LTD., JOSE TRUST BUILDING, P.B. NO. 3664, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20451 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is stated as the owner of the vehicle which involved in a motor accident and a party to OP(MV) No. 509 of 2004 filed before the MACT, North Paravoor, has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 notice issued by the revenue authorities under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in furtherance to the steps for executing the Award stated as passed by the concerned Tribunal against the petitioner. 2. Case put forth by the petitioner is that, the motor bike bearing No. KL7 AQ 1399 owned by the petitioner met with a road traffic accident on 7.4.2004 causing injuries to a person, which led to filing of OP(MV) 509 of 2004. The petitioner contends that, he could not appear before the MACT, as he did not receive any notice from the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an Award fixing the liability upon the petitioner; pursuant to which, Ext.P1 proceedings have been taken by the Revenue Authority, at the instance of the claimant, for the realization of the amount stated as due. The only prayer of the petitioner is, to stay the revenue recovery proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the exparte Award passed by the Tribunal; which itself forms the interim relief sought for as well. WP (C) No. 20451 of 2009 : 2 : 3. At the very outset, it is to be noted is that there is no 'main relief' prayed in the Writ Petition to set aside the exparte Award. The only prayer is to stay the consequential proceedings in execution. Obviously interim relief can only sub serve the main relief and in so far as the main relief is conspicuously absent, no interim relief can be granted. That apart, there is a statutory hurdle, in so far as the Award in OP(MV) can be challenged only by way of appeal under Section 173 and no Writ Petition is maintainable, as made clear by the Apex Court on many an occasion including in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2003 (3) SCC 524) . 4. In the above circumstances, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedies in accordance with law. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd