The High Court dismissed a petition seeking expedited disposal of applications and a stay on recovery proceedings. The Court held the petitioner failed to avail earlier relief in a pending writ petition now finally disposed of, deeming the fresh prayer impermissible.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/1ST CHAITHRA 1934
OP (MAC).No. 1012 of 2012 (O)
OPMV.1272/1997 of M.A.C.T.,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S):
BIJU ALEX, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.ALEXANDER, CHIRAKKADAYIL HOUSE, CHAMAKALA P.O. KOTHANALLOOR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MR.ROY JOSEPH
BY ADVS.SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC
SRI.BABY THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(MAC) No. 1012/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
vps
P.N.RAVINDRAN , J.
O.P.(MAC) No.1012 OF 2012
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is the second respondent in O.P.(MV) No.1272 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The first respondent herein is the claimant therein. The said claim petition was filed alleging that the claimant, a passenger in the stage carriage belonging to the second respondent herein and driven by the petitioner herein, sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 26.2.1997 as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the stage carriage by the petitioner.
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012 2
they were set ex-parte. The insurer contended before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the petitioner/driver did not possess a valid driving licence and badge. Accepting that contention the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal observed that it will be open to the insurer to pay the compensation and to recover the amount paid by it from the owner and driver of the vehicle. The insurer paid the compensation and thereafter applied to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a revenue recovery certificate to recover the amount paid by it as compensation from the owner. A certificate was accordingly issued and thereupon, Ext.P3 demand notice was issued under sections 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner demanding payment of the sum of Rs.83,254/-. The petitioner herein thereupon filed I.A. No.6282 of 2011 to set aside ex-parte award passed against him on 21.3.2001 along with I.A. No.6283 of 2011 to stay the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him by the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Vaikom. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.922 of 2012 in this Court wherein the only relief sought by him was
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012
3
as follows:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to stop the further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit-P2 notice till the stay petition is decided by the Tribunal below.”
single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
“2. Although the position canvassed by the learned Sr.Counsel is perfectly correct, the fact remains that the petitioner has also applied for setting aside the ex parte award and the stay application is pending before the Tribunal and taking note of this and in order to enable the petitioner to obtain final orders from the Tribunal, I direct that recovery proceedings shall be deferred for 8 weeks from today and in the meantime it is up to the petitioner to procure such orders from the Tribunal. It is made clear that in case any orders are not passed, it will be open to the revenue authorities to continue the recovery action already initiated.”
13.3.2012. This original petition is filed contending that notwithstanding the production of Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.922 of 2012 on 13.3.2012, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not disposed of I.A. Nos.6282 of 2011 and 6283 of 2011 within the time limit stipulated by this Court. On this ground the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012
4
(i) Issue directing the Tribunal below to dispose Exhibits P5 & P6 application within a reasonable time.
(ii) Issue directing the Tribunal below to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P2 award.
petition is expeditious disposal of I.A. Nos.6282 of 2011 and
6283 of 2011 and an order staying recovery pursuant to Ext.P2 award until the disposal of the said applications. This is a relief which the petitioner could have sought in the earlier writ petition namely, W.P.(C) No.922 of 2012 filed on 11.1.2012. The cause of action for that writ petition was the issuance of demand notices under sections 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act which were produced in the said writ petition as Ext.P2. The petitioner ought to have in my opinion sought the relief, which he has sought in the instant original petition, in W.P.(C) No.922 of 2012. He had in the earlier writ petition prayed for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 till the stay petition is decided by the Tribunal. This Court did not however grant the said relief, but only directed that the revenue recovery proceedings will be deferred for a period of eight weeks and that the petitioner should in the meanwhile moved the Tribunal for
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012
5
appropriate orders. This Court also observed that in case orders are not passed within the period of eight weeks, it will be open to the revenue authorities to continue the action initiated by them.
In the light of Ext.P8 judgment, which has attained finality, the reliefs prayed for in the instant original petition cannot be granted.
The original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)
vps
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012 6
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012 7
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012 8
OP(MAC)No.1012/2012 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to stay of recovery proceedings when the interim order was sub judice in a prior writ petition.
Whether a fresh original petition is maintainable after a final order in a prior writ petition with similar prays.
Biju Alex
Kunjumol Jomon
N.G. Shaji
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
P.N. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
