IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11287 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.J.JAMES, S/O.LATE JOHN, AGED 50 YEARS, POLLAYIL HOUSE, MANASSERY, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, WORKMEN COMPENSATION COURT, KAKKANADU. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOCHI. 4. GEORGE PHILIP, PALATHIL HOUSE, FORT KOCHI. 5. DIRECTOR, ONYX FISHERIES, 16/1042, PALATHIL ESTATE, THOPPUMPADI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDIN. R4 BY SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.11287 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is the applicant in a workmen compensation case in which the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P1 award against respondents 4 and 5, directing them to pay an amount of Rs.1,38,340/- along with interest. On failure of respondents 4 and 5 to pay the amount, the second respondent issued requisition for recovery. But no effective steps were taken by the third respondent to realise the amount and therefore the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion. This Court issued Ext.P2 judgment directing the second respondent to pursue the matter with the Tahsildar and to ensure that the amount due under the award is collected and released to the petitioner at the earliest. Thereafter the 4th respondent filed another writ petition challenging Ext.P1 Award, in which an interim stay was granted by this court, on W.P.(C) No.11287 of 2009 2 condition of depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The said amount was deposited and the petitioner got the same released from the second respondent. But that writ petition was subsequently dismissed as per Ext.P4 judgment, and recovery steps were allowed to be pursued against the 4th respondent. 2. Thereafter Ext.P5 application was filed by the petitioner before the second respondent requesting to initiate proceedings against properties of both respondents 4 and 5 pointed out by the petitioner. From Ext.P7 communication issued by the second respondent to the third respondent, it is revealed that the said application was forwarded to the third respondent with request to take effective steps for realisation of the amount. But inspite of receipt of Ext.P7 communication, as early as in February 2008, nothing turned out and respondents 1 to 3 are not taking any effective steps for recovery of the balance W.P.(C) No.11287 of 2009 3 amount, is the grievance at present. 2. In the statement of the third respondent it is enumerated that out of the properties pointed out by the petitioner in none of the items the 4th respondent is holding any independent title. Only in two items the 4th respondent is holding undivided share. It is stated that steps were already taken to attach the share held by the fourth respondent in those items and to sell the same by demarcating his portion out of the undivided property. But the wife of the fourth respondent filed another Writ Petition , W.P.(C) No.2083/2009 challenging the revenue recovery steps on the ground that the action taken for unilateral demarcation of the share of the defaulter out of the joint property is not legal and proper. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that pursuant to the challenge fresh steps are now being initiated for auctioning undivided share of the defaulter/4th respondent in those W.P.(C) No.11287 of 2009 4 items of properties. It is further stated that the 4th respondent is also a defaulter of sale tax arrears along with some of the other co-owners and R.R. action is also initiated against all the defaulters. It is stated that further proclamation of sale has already been issued scheduling auction on 29.9.2007. 3. Under the above Circumstances, it is evident that the third respondent is pursuing the matter. In this case it is to be noticed that the petitioner who got an Award in a workmen compensation case as early as in the year 1998, could not able to get its fruits till date. Therefore, it is necessary on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to take effective steps for realising the amount at the earliest. Since it is submitted that steps are being pursued, the writ petition need not be kept pending. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of recording statement of the respondents and directing respondents 1 to 3 to expedite actions for W.P.(C) No.11287 of 2009 5 realisation of the amount due under Ext.P1 award, and to disburse the same to the petitioner at the earliest. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. app/-