IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11950 of 2004(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, S/O.MAYANDI, NELLIPADAM, VALLANGY P.O., NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. GOVINDAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, VATTEKKAD, KOLLENGODE, CHITTU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS SRI.A.R.GANGADAS SRI.T.M.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLANGY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAVANCHERY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, RAJA MILL ROAD, POLLACHI, TN-642001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).11950/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2:- COPY OF RR NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P3:- COPY OF RR NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF RR NOTICE ISSUED U/S 7 OF THE ACT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF RR NOTICE U/S 34 ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6:- COPY OF RR NOTICE ISSUED U/S 34 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.11950 OF 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 to P7 notices issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioners for realisation of the amounts awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, which was paid to the claimants by the 5th respondent. In the awards of the Tribunal, right to recovery was permitted to the 5th respondent on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid licence at the time of the accident. Contention of the petitioners is that they were not having knowledge about the awards and only when the recovery steps were initiated they came to know about the liability. According to the petitioners the person who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was holding a valid licence. However it is stated that the petitioners have already filed appeals against the award in both the cases along with petitions for condonation of delay, as early as in the year 2004. Therefore the limited prayer is only to keep in abeyance the steps for recovery till the appeals are considered by this Court. 2. Since it is admitted by the petitioners that they have W.P.(C).11950/04-V 2 already resorted to the remedy by way of appeal as early as in the year 2004, it is for them to seek appropriate relief from the appellate Court. In this writ petition the petitioners have not even produced copy of the award nor they are in a position to challenge the award herein. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to right of the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in the appeals filed against the awards of the Tribunal. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb