IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28140 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.O.ELIYAS, AGED 48 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHUR P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. NAUFAL, S/O.ABDUL SALAM, NIJAM MANSIL, ALAPPUZHA. 5. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.DIVAKARAN, BHAVAN, THAKKAN EDAMAON, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 28140/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.M.V.NO.656/02 OF THE MACT, ALAPUZHA. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY R2. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 151 BEFORE THE MACT. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE R2. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28140 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition was the 1st respondent in O.P (M.V).No.656/2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The 4th respondent was the claimant and the 5th respondent was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, which was owned by the petitioner. Now the Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him and awarded an amount of Rs.17,250/- with interest. It was directed that the petitioner and the 5th respondent shall pay the amount to the 4th respondent in equal shares. Both did not pay the amount. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. The revenue recovery proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that despite the fact that in Ext.P1 award, the direction is to both the petitioner and the 5th respondent to pay the compensation in equal shares, without proceeding against the 5th respondent, the entire amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner alone. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, direction or orders calling for the records leading upto Ext.P2 and quash the same. 2 ii. issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or orders to recover only 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P2 from the petitioner as is mandated by Ext.P1. iii. issue any such other writ, direction or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The 5th respondent has not chosen to enter appearance and to contest the matter. This Court, while admitting this writ petition, passed the following interim order on 20.9.2007. “G.P. takes notice for R1 to 3. Since award is against petitioner as well as 5th respondent, there is no need to issue notice to 4th respondent who is the claimant. There will be interim direction to respondents 2 and 3 to proceed for recovery of 50% of demand from 5th respondent, if he is the co-debtor along with the petitioner. There will be stay against recovery of 50% of demand against the petitioner for six weeks on petitioner remitting 50% of the demand within one month from now.” 3. In so far as in Ext.P1 award the petitioner and the 5th respondent had been directed to pay the award amount in equal shares, the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner can only be in respect of half of the award amount. That being so, the petitioner can be proceeded against only for 50 per cent of the amount covered by Ext.P1 award. In I.A.No.16279/2007, by order dated 10.12.2007, this Court had recorded the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the direction for remitting 50 per cent of the demand has been complied with. If that be true, no further proceedings can be taken against the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of holding that if the petitioner has paid the 50% as 3 directed in the interim order of this Court, the petitioner shall not be proceeded against for recovery of the balance. But it is made clear that proceedings shall be continued against the 5th respondent for recovery of the balance 50%. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge