Dismissed

Muhammed Ali v. District Collector

Kerala HC18 Mar 2019WP(C)/5112/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand notice for revenue recovery issued by the Deputy Tahsildar under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that the petitioner must seek supervisory relief under Article 227 against the Tribunal order or the demand notice rather than using Article 226 jurisdiction, especially since remedies are pending before the Trib

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Muhammed Ali Vs District Collector — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MUHAMMED ALI AGED 65 YEARS S/O. BAPPUTTI, PANICHAMKULANGARA HOUSE, PUNNAYOOR P.O., PUNNAYOOR VILLAGE DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.C.I.EDISON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD-680 506.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUNNAYOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PUNNAYOOR P.O., 679 562.

¶13

SRI K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who was arrayed as the first respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2022/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 demand notice dated 23.10.2018 issued by the second respondent Deputy Tahsildar and seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 demand notice, pending disposal of this writ petition.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶20

The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1 demand notice dated 23.10.2018 issued by the second respondent Deputy Tahsildar, which is one issued pursuant to an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P. (M.V.)No.2022/2009, for initiating revenue recovery proceedings.

¶21

As borne out from the pleadings and materials on

¶22

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019 3

¶23

record, the petitioner, who is the registered owner of a motor bike bearing registration No.KL-8/AB-2661, was arrayed as the first respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.2022/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, arising out of a motor accident, which occurred in the year 2009, involving the said motor bike. The claimant, who sustained injuries, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal passed an ex-parte award on a finding that the rider of the Motor bike has no valid license at the time of accident. The insurer of the said vehicle was given recovery right to recover the compensation amount awarded together with interest and cost by proceeding against the petitioner, who was arrayed as the registered owner of that vehicle. After payment of the award amount to the injured, the insurer approached the Tribunal with a request to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner, invoking its powers under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, on that request, the second respondent has initiated revenue recovery proceedings, which has resulted in the issuance of Ext.P1 demand notice.

¶24

The fact that the petitioner is a party to the award

¶25

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019 4

¶26

passed by the Tribunal in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2022/2009 is not in dispute. If that be so, he cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P1 demand notice, without challenging the order of the Tribunal initiating revenue recovery proceedings, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, within the permissible limits.

¶27

The petitioner has already filed interlocutory applications seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte award passed by the Tribunal and to condone the delay in filing the said application.

¶28

As held by this Court in Subaida v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Thrissur District and others [2019 (1) KHC SN 7 : ILR 2019 (1) Ker 393] , if a person is aggrieved by an award passed by the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Act, he has to challenge the same in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act, after complying with the statutory mandate of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173, subject to the time limit prescribed in the second proviso to that sub-rule. The challenge to an order passed by the Tribunal (other than an award passed under Section 168) has to be one invoking the supervisory

¶29

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019 5

¶30

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge to such an order of the District Judge, as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has to be made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226. Being part of the district judiciary, the District Judge acts as a court and the order passed by him is an order of the subordinate court against which remedy under Article 227 of

¶31

the Constitution of India can be availed on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction, which is supervisory in nature.

¶32

In Subaida's case supra , this Court held further that, as per Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where any amount is due from any person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. The order of the Claims Tribunal under Section 174 of the Act, to initiate revenue recovery, based on an application made by

¶33

the person entitled to the amount as per the award, is also an order against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed. In an O.P.(MAC) filed

¶34

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019 6

¶35

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner can seek a time bound disposal of any interlocutory applications filed after the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and stay of operation of the order of the Claims Tribunal under Section 174 of the Act, and all recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to that order. For seeking such reliefs, it is for the petitioner to file an O.P.(MAC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, if a person against whom revenue recovery proceedings are initiated by issuing a demand notice pursuant to the order of the Claims Tribunal under Section 174 of the Act requires only time for payment of the dues in monthly instalments, he can approach this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the person entitled to the amount as per the award and also the revenue officials in the party array.

¶36

Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that no interference is warranted on Ext.P1 demand notice dated 23.10.2018 issued by the second respondent, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the challenge in

¶37

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019

¶38

¶39

this writ petition against Ext.P1 demand notice can only be repelled for the aforesaid reason.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶41

that the petitioner has already moved interlocutory applications in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2022/2009, seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte award, which is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and those applications are now pending consideration before the Tribunal.

¶42

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for appropriate reliefs in view of the pendency of the aforesaid interlocutory applications.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

DCS

WP(C).No. 5112 of 2019 8

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.1.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 15.1.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE UNNUMBERED PLAINT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD.

Muhammed Ali v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Ali v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamza Vs Nilambur Municipality

Celin Joseph Vs the District Collector

Thomas Stephen, Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Karunakaran.K, Vs M.Manoharan

V.K.Vasudevan Nair Vs Kakkodi Grama Panchayath

Vijayakumar, Vs State of Kerala