Rajan P Thomas v. District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/27TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 8585 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER :- ----------------------- RAJAN P THOMAS, KAVUMKOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUVATTA, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS :- ---------------------------

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 545.

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR - 671 543.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGANATTU - 691 551.

4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GEPLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE - 400 101. R BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, R BY SMT. M.T.SHEEBA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8585 of 2015 (W) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 :- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF VEHICLE DATED 2-9-2007.

EXHIBIT P2 :- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 6-2-2008.

EXHIBIT P3 :- TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS AVAILABLE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE JOINT RTO, ADOOR. EXHIBIT P4 :- TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10-9-2013 IN OP(MV)NO.1375/2008. EXHIBIT P5 :- TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY ISSUED ON 18-2-2008. EXHIBIT P6 :- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 7 DATED 9-1-2015. EXHIBIT P7 :- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 34 DATED 9-1-2015. EXHIBIT P8 :- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5-2-2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8585 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated pursuant to the MACT award. The petitioner submits that now they are challenged the award before this Honourable Court by filing appeal. It is further submitted that there is some delay involved in filing the appeal and therefore the stay application will be considered only after condonation of delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the petitioner shall be deferred for a period of three months to enable the petitioner to work out his alternative remedies. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE