IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4365 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRAPRAKASH S/O. GOVINDHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, NANDILATH ELECTRONICS, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.C.MARYKUTTY, ANAKKATTIL HOUSE, THACHAMPARA, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. M/S.WESTON ELECTRONIC LTD., DIXON TECHNOLIGIES INDIA (P) LTD., B-14, PHASE II, NOIDA, UTTERPRADESH-201305. 3. TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001. ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.4365 of 2011-U ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P7 notice, issued under Section 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount sought to be recovered is the compensation awarded under Ext.P1 order by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Palakkad, in C.C.No.153/1998. The petitioner is the first opposite party in Ext.P1 award. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 order was challenged in appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. But the appeal was dismissed for default as evidenced from Ext.P4, as early as on 20.9.2008. It is stated that the petitioner is taking steps to get the appeal restored before the appellate authority. It is also contended that inspite of the fact that the award is passed also against the second opposite party, the 1st respondent herein is not taking any effective steps to recover the amounts from the second opposite party. W.P(C) No.4365 of 2011-U 2 2. Heard; counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The prayer in the writ petition is vehemently opposed contending that the complaint in question was filed as early as in the year 1993 and even Ext.P1 order was issued in the year 2006. Still the 1st respondent could not realise any amount from the opposite party. It is also pointed out that inspite of dismissal of the appeal in the year 2008, no effective steps was taken from the side of the petitioner, either to restore the appeal or to make payment of the amounts due. 3. Considering the rival contentions as stated above, it is evident that the liability now stands finalised, since the appeal filed against Ext.P1 stands dismissed. Eventhough the petitioner had stated reasons for not taking any effective steps against dismissal of the appeal for default, I am not convinced that there exist any legally tenable grounds to restrain the recovery steps. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, steps for filing the restoration application is being taken and that all earnest efforts will be pursued to restore the appeal and to W.P(C) No.4365 of 2011-U 3 prosecute the same. Under such circumstances, he seeks for a breathing time by restraining the recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Ext.P7. 4. I am of the considered opinion that, there is no circumstance existing warranting interference of this Court to restrain the recovery steps. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, on the basis of an appeal made by the petitioner, the respondents are restrained from pursuing further coercive steps of recovery on the basis of Ext.P7, for a period of two months, in order to facilitate the petitioner to take appropriate steps if any, to seek remedy from the appellate authority. 5. It is made clear that, I have not expressed any opinion regarding merits of the matter or with respect to rights of the petitioner to get the appeal restored. It is also made clear that attachment if any effected pursuant to the revenue recovery steps will continue. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab