IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16531 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH.T.THALIYAN HOUSE,KURICHILAKKAD, KODANAD.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD,PERUMBAVOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16531 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the recovery proceedings being pursued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the amount stated as due from the wife and son of the petitioner. 2. The case narrated by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that the motor cycle belonging to the wife of the petitioner was being ridden by the son, when it met with an accident causing some injuries to the person concerned, leading to OP(MV) 1474/1998 before the MACT, Perumbavoor, wherein Ext.P2 Award was passed by the Tribunal. On filing appeal, Ext.P1 judgment was passed by this Court, remanding the matter; whereupon the Tribunal reconsidered the case and passed Ext.P2 Award. As borne by Ext.P2, the liability of the respondents therein was confirmed; however, the Insurance Company was permitted to have it recovered after satisfying the Award, from the other respondents in view of the proven violation of the statutory/policy conditions. 3. On finalization of the proceedings as above, the Insurer made requisition to the Revenue authorities after satisfying the liability to the claimant, which led to Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued in the name of the wife and son of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that, the 2 WP(C) No. 16531/2010 petitioner is in no way connected with the accident or the liability and as such, the respondents are not at all justified in harassing the petitioner on the strength of Exts.P3 and P4 notices, which hence are under challenge. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. There is no case of the respondents that any requisition has been placed by anybody seeking to realize any amount from the petitioner and Exts.P3 and P4 notices are obviously not in the name of the petitioner. This being the position, the above notices are not liable to be enforced against the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the above notices will be enforced only against the persons named therein and that the property of the petitioner will not be proceed against as sought for in prayer ‘A’. 6. In the above circumstance, the above submission is recorded. No further order requires to be passed in this Writ Petition, as nothing survives to be adjudicated. The Writ Petition is closed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc