IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9004 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SIMON K.A., S/O.AMBROSE, KANAKASSERY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE, SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ, SRI.P.PRIJITH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), COCHIN-1. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVANAKKAD, KOCHI TALUK, PIN-682 506. 4. JAYAN, S/O.KUNJAN, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALAMUKKU, PUTHUVYPEEN, PIN-682 508. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9004 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge is against revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P(MV) No.844/2004, in favour of the 4th respondent. The revenue recovery steps were initiated on the basis of Execution Petition filed by the 4th respondent. The writ petition was filed under the premise that the petitioner was not having knowledge about the award and he is not in a financial position to pay the liability. 2. The petitioner has not raised any tenable contentions in order to refute the liability. However, on the basis of persuasive submissions made, this court had shown indulgence in keeping further coercive steps of recovery pending, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.10,000/- within one month from 24.3.2011. Subsequently the interim order was extended till 31.5.2011 subject to condition of further payment of Rs.10,000/- on or before 20.5.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to assert about compliance of the condition W.P.(C).9004/11 -2- stipulated. He conceded that there is no instruction from the petitioner. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. Accordingly the writ petition dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb