Disposed

Nasir K.U. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2018WP(C)/10399/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a demand notice for accident claim amounts without adjudicating merits. It directed the Deputy Tahsildar to consider a pending representation by the petitioner and pass orders within one month, while keeping an interim stay in force.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Nasir K.U. Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 10399 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NASIR K.U. AGED 45 YEARS S/O USMAN, KURIAPPILLY HOUSE, METHALA P.O.,KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, PIN:680001.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR [RR]

¶13

TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR, PIN:680 664.

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN:680 664.

¶15

5 SURESH

¶16

S/O JANARDHANA MENON, KONNAKKAL HOUSE, CHERIYATHEKKANAM, NORTH KUTHIYATHODU P.O., PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PIN:683 594.

¶17

6 JANARDHANA MENON S/O ACHUTHA MENON, KONNAKKAL HOUSE, CHERIYATHEKKANAM,NORTH KUTHIYATHODU P.O., PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE,PIN:683 594.

¶18

SRI. BIMAL K. NATH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C)No.10399 of 2018

¶21

:-2-:

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner, who is the 2^nd judgment debtor in E.P.No.159/2010 in O.P.(MV)No.186/2006 on the

¶24

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, N.Parur, has filed this writ petition under

¶25

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 demand notice dated 2.12.2015 issued by the 3^rd respondent Deputy Tahsildar for realisation of the amount claimed in E.P.No.168/2010 in O.P.(MV)No.186/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, N.Parur; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to

¶26

4 to allow him to pay the amount demanded in Ext.P10 demand notice towards his liability in Ext.P2 E.P.No.159/2010 in instalments. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to give credit to the amounts paid by the petitioner before the Tribunal in

¶27

W.P.(C)No.10399 of 2018

¶28

:-3-:

¶29

E.P.Nos.168/2010 and 159/2010 as per Ext.P3 balance statement and Exts.P7 and P8 memo of payments before proceeding to recover the amount demanded in Exts.P4 and P10 demand notices.

¶30

On 26.3.2018 when this writ petition came

¶31

up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4. Notice

¶32

on admission by speed post was ordered on respondents 5 and 6. This Court granted an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P10 for a period of two weeks. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

¶33

returned with an endorsement 'addressee expired'. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.2/2018, seeking an

¶34

order to implead the legal heirs of the deceased

¶35

6^th respondent. In the said interlocutory

¶36

W.P.(C)No.10399 of 2018

¶37

:-4-:

¶38

application, notice was ordered to the respondents

¶39

sought to be impleaded on 6.9.2018. Despite service of notice in I.A.No.2 of 2018, none

¶40

appears for additional respondents 7 and 8. Today by the order in I.A.No.2/2018, the legal heirs of

¶41

the deceased 6^th respondent are impleaded as additional respondents 7 and 8.

¶42

I.A.No.10667/2018, seeking an order to accept

¶43

Ext.P13 representation dated 12.6.2018 submitted

¶44

before the 3^rd respondent Deputy Tahsildar, as additional document.

¶45

petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Despite service of notice, none appears for 5^th respondent and also

¶46

for the additional respondents 7 and 8, who are

¶47

the legal heirs of the deceased 6^th respondent.

¶48

W.P.(C)No.10399 of 2018

¶49

:-5-:

¶50

During the course of arguments, the

¶51

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has moved Ext.P13 representation dated 12.6.2018 before the 3^rd respondent, which is now pending consideration. Therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate decision on that representation, with notice to the petitioner and also to respondents 5 and additional respondents 7 and 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that based on the decision taken by the 3^rd respondent on Ext.P13, the petitioner is prepared to pay the balance amount, if any, due in terms of Exts.P4 and P10 demand notices.

¶52

The learned Senior Government Pleader

¶53

appearing for the official respondents would

¶54

submit that the 3^rd respondent Deputy Tahsildar

¶55

W.P.(C)No.10399 of 2018

¶56

:-6-:

¶57

shall consider Ext.P13 representation made by the

¶58

petitioner within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶59

Having considered the submissions made by

¶60

the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, without going into the

¶61

merits of the case, by directing the 3^rd respondent

¶62

Deputy Tahsildar to consider Ext.P13

¶63

representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 5^th respondent and additional respondents 7 and 8. A decision in this

¶64

regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as

¶65

possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶66

Till such orders are passed, the interim

¶67

order granted by this Court shall continue to be

¶68

W.P.(C)No.10399 of 2018

¶69

:-7-:

¶70

in force.

¶71

Based on the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner shall pay the balance amount, if any due as per the demand made in Exts.P4 and P10 demand notices, without any delay.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶74

ami/11.12.18

¶75

APPENDIX

¶76

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶77

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.168/2010 DATED 13.8.2010.

¶78

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.159/2010 DATED 12.8.2010. EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BALANCE STATEMENT FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE DECREE HOLDER IN E.P.168/2010 DATED 17.10.2012.

¶79

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE BEARING REQUISITION NO.2015/8/9357 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLUR DATED 2.12.2015.

¶80

W.P.(C)No.10399 of 2018

¶81

:-8-:

¶82

EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 3234/2016 DATED 28.1.2016. EXHIBIT P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.7395073 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.3.2016. EXHIBIT P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.7126750 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.7.2017. EXHIBIT P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN E.P.159/2010 DATED 1.1.2011. EXHIBIT P9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN E.P.159/2010 DATED 7.9.2011. EXHIBIT P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE BEARING REQUISITION NO.2015/9353/8 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 2.12.2015. EXHIBIT P11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.7395074 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.3.2016. EXHIBIT P12: A STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER TO SHOW THE AMOUNT PAID BEFORE THE MACT AND THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN RR PROCEEDINGS IN E.P.159/2010 AND IN EP 168/2010. EXHIBIT P13: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 12.6.2018

Nasir K.U. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasir K.U. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Board of Directors, Kozhipally Service Co-Operative Bank Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operatives (General)

The Managing Committee Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Mohanan Velayudhan Vs Inchiany Service Co-Operative Service Co-Operative Bank

A.L.Babu Vs the Idukki District Taxi Drivers Co-Operative Society Limited

Princy Vs the Registrar of Co-Oiperative Societies

Najeeb V.B Vs Regional Transport Officer