IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26203 of 2008(T)
1. P.I.ABDUL NAZEER ,S/O. ISMAIL P.M.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
... Respondent
2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE
3. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
For Petitioner :SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR
For Respondent :SRI.RAJAN P.KALLIATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26203/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1. Ext.P1
has been issued at the instance of the 3rd respondent
Insurance Company. The standing counsel points out that in
pursuance to Ext.P2 award rendered by the MACT,
Perumbavoor in OP(MV).No.2213/2001 the 3rd respondent
has discharged the liability and in terms of the award, steps
have now been taken by the 3rd respondent for realising the
amount from the petitioner, by taking recourse to the
revenue recovery proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
award is an ex-parte award and that notice was not served
on him. It is also stated that the petitioner intends to pursue
WP(c).No.26203/2008 2
the statutory remedies that are available against the award,
as according to him, he has very good case on merits.
3. As already noticed, Ext.P1 is initiated at the
instance of the 3rd respondent in terms of the direction
issued by the MACT, Perumbavoor in Ext.P2 Award. If so,
petitioner cannot assail the revenue recovery proceedings
contending that it was an ex-parte award.
4. After hearing both sides, taking into account the
submission that the petitioner is proposing to file an appeal,
in order to enable the petitioner to invoke the statutory
remedies, I direct that further proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P1 be deferred for a period of one month from today.
5. Counsel for the 3rd respondent expressed the
apprehension that in the meanwhile if the petitioner
alienates his properties, recovery could be rendered futile.
When this submission was made, counsel for the petitioner
has undertaken before me that whatever movable or
immovable that he has, will not be encumbered or
WP(c).No.26203/2008 3
alienated, so long as Ext.P1 is kept in abeyance on the
orders of this court. This submission is recorded.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before
the respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.26203/2008 4