IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1548 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SAJEEVKUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, VADAKKEDAN HOUSE, VELUPPADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, PALLATT HOUSE, ARIKUZHA.P.O, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 3. P.INDIRA, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, PALLATT HOUSE, ARIKUZHA.P.O, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 4. R.JAYASREE MANOJ, W/O.K.MANOJ, J.S.MANDIRAM, VELLURKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 5. SIVAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NADUVELI HOUSE, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, KARA, ALUVA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.1548 of 2010-P ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the movables and immovables as per Exts.P2 and P3 in furtherance to the realization of the amount stated as due as per the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.1714 of 2003. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a Nizan Tempo goods carrier having registration No.KL 7C 3029 on 23.8.2000 and was operating the same. Subsequently, finding that the operation was not feasible or profitable, the petitioner sold the vehicle to the fifth respondent on 23.8.2000 on the basis of Ext.P1 sale agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that, after effecting the sale, the fifth respondent had assured the petitioner that he would intimate the transfer of the vehicle to the authorities concerned, which however did not take place. While so, the vehicle met with an accident causing injuries to the third respondent, which led to filing of O.P(MV) No.1714 of 2003. The petitioner was the first W.P(C) No.1548 of 2010-P 2 respondent/owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal. It is stated that the petitioner was not served with any notice, despite which, he was set ex-parte; leading to the Award passed by the said Tribunal granting a compensation of Rs.1,50,050/- to the claimant, which was directed to be satisfied by the petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle as there was no insurance coverage for the vehicle. The case of the petitioner is that he had sold the vehicle as per Ext.P1 sale agreement and hence that the revenue recovery proceedings as per Exts.P2 and P3 might be intercepted and appropriate direction might be given to the first respondent to consider the grievance projected in Ext.P4 representation. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Obviously, the first respondent is pursuing the steps as per Exts.P2 and P3, only in furtherance to the Award passed by the Tribunal in O.P (MV) No.1714 of 2003. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner with regard to the passing of 'Ex-parte Award' against him, the remedy is to challenge it by way of an appeal, as provided under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the Award in question has not been subjected to challenge, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, the W.P(C) No.1548 of 2010-P 3 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already taken steps to obtain a certified copy of the Award and is taking urgent steps to file an appeal and that some breathing time might be given to the petitioner to pursue such remedy, keeping Exts.P2 and P3 revenue recovery proceedings in abeyance, for the time being. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition; as the remedy of the petitioner is only to file an appeal. However, so as to enable the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in this regard, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance by the first respondent for a period of one month. In view of the limited nature of relief granted as above, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to respondents 2 to 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab