IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17397 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.ABDULLA HAJI, S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI AGED 54 YEARS, DOOR NO. VI/195, KADAMKODE, P.O.THURUTHY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATHOOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT-1. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ WP(C).No. 17397 of 2009(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF R.C. BOOK SHOWING TRANSFER OF THE JEEP IN FAVOUR OF NOUPHAL WITH EFFECT FROM 20.11.2003. P2. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF R.C. BOOK SHOWING TRANSFER OF THE JEEP IN SIJO'S NAME WITH EFFECT FROM 19.02.2004. P3. COPY OF KACHIT DATED 17.04.2004. P4. COPY OF AWARD IN O.P. (MV) 659/04 DATED 11.01.2008 PASSED BY MACT, VADAKARA. P5. COPY OF COMMON AWARD DATED 24.05.2008 PASSED BY MACT, VADAKARA. P6. COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 11.02.2009 IN O.P. (MV) 52/05. P7. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.7849/09. P8. COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN O.P.(MV) NO.52/2005 DATED 14.06.09 FOR DELAY CONDONATION. P9. COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN O.P.(MV) NO.52/05 DATED 14.06.2009 FOR SET ASIDE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 17397 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by revenue recovery steps initiated for realisation of the amount covered under Ext.P5 Award of the MACT, Vadakara, pursuant to issuance of Ext.P6 notice under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner was implicated as respondent in the claim petition alleging that he is the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal passed Award against the insurer of the vehicle, but provided right of recovery to them to realise the amount of compensation from the petitioner as well as from the driver of the vehicle. According to the petitioner he was ex-parte before the Tribunal and he came to know about the award only when notice under the revenue recovery proceedings were W.P.(C)No. 17397 of 2009 -2- received, pursuant to execution filed by the insurer of the vehicle. 2. On an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this court and in Ext.P7 judgment he was relegated to the MACT for seeking appropriate reliefs, by way of setting aside the ex-parte Award. This court in Ext.P7 judgment had directed the authorities to keep the recovery steps in abeyance for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to work out his remedies. It is noticed that Ext.P7 judgment was issued as early as on 17th March 2009. But the petitioner had moved Exts.P8 & P9 applications for setting aside ex-parte award and for condonation of delay, before that Tribunal only during the month of June 2009. It is submitted that the above petitions were numbered before the MACT as I.A. Nos.2134/2009 and 2135/2009 in O.P.(MV) 52/2005. The petitioner contended that those interim applications are now pending disposal before the MACT. W.P.(C)No. 17397 of 2009 -3- 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the steps for recovery is now being pursued since the time limit fixed under Ext.P7 judgment is over. It is noticed that in spite of indulgence shown by this court in Ext.P7 the petitioner had not cared to approach the Tribunal within any short period. Further it is noticed that the petitioner has not moved any application seeking stay of the recovery steps before the Tribunal, along with the petitions filed seeking to set aside the ex-parte Award. Since the matter is in seizin of the MACT, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies before that Tribunal. 4. However, if the petitioner files any application before the MACT seeking stay of revenue recovery steps, the Tribunal may consider the same and pass appropriate orders as early as possible. The Tribunal shall also take all earnest effort to dispose of Exts.P8 & P9 applications at the earliest possible. Since it is apprehended that coercive steps for recovery is being pursued, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance such steps for a further period W.P.(C)No. 17397 of 2009 -4- of two months from today in order to facilitate the petitioner take appropriate steps as directed above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/