IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25020 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAYAKUMAR, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, "GEETHA BHAVANAM", VILAKKETHARA, P.O.THEKKUMMURI, PALISSERY, MALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25020/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for realising the dues towards the award passed by the MACT, Iringalakuda are challenged in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner was the driver of the vehicle involved in an accident which lead to the filing of O.P(MV).No.677/1995 before the MACT, Iringalakuda. In that case compensation was awarded to the victim and the petitioner was also made liable. Admittedly, the petitioner remained ex-parte and the award was passed as early as on 5.8.2002. Payment was not made and therefore recovery is now attempted to be made by issuing Exts.P1 and P1(a). WP(c).No.25020/2008 2 3. There upon the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application for setting aside the ex-parte order and this application dated 16.8.2008 is pending consideration. Petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of this application, revenue recovery pursuant to Exts.P1 and P1 (a) should be deferred. 4. I am not in a position to accept this submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, notice from the Tribunal was served on the petitioner. For his own reasons the petitioner had chosen to remain ex-parte and an award has been passed. As at present the award has become final and binding. If that be so, there is absolutely no reason to find anything erroneous with Exts.P1 and P1 (a). Mere pendency of a belated application for setting aside the ex-parte order also can be no reason to direct that Exts.P1 and P1(a) be deferred in the meanwhile. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.25020/2008 3