AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER''S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1:
True Copy of Sale Agreement Entered Into Between The Petitioner And The 4th Respondent
EXT.P2:
True Copy of The Demand Notice Issued U/S 7 of R.R.Act By The Deputy Tahsildar, R.R. Dated 15.6.2012
EXT.P3:
True Copy of The Demand Prior To The Attachment of Land Issued U/S.34 of The R.R. Act By The Dy.Tahsildar Dated 15.6.2012.
EXT.P4:
True Copy of The Demand Notice Issued U/S.7 of The R.R. Act Issued By The Deputy Tahsildar Dated 15.6.2012
EXT.P5:
True Copy of The Objection Submitted By The Petitioner Before The Deputy Tahsildar, Mukundapuram
RESPONDENTS; EXHIBITS
NIL
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
a. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P2, P3 and P4 demand notices and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
b. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, direction or order directing 2nd and 3rd respondents not to initiate any coercive action pursuant to Exts. P2, P3 and P4 demand notices issued by the 2nd respondent.
c. To issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the 2nd and 3rd respondents from proceeding with the coercive action against the petitioner''s sole house and property pursuant tot he issuance of Exts.P2, P3 and P4 demand notices issued by the 2nd respondent.
d. To declare that the coercive actions initiated against the petitioner''s house and property pursuant to the issuance of Exts.P2, P3 and P4 demand notices is illegal, arbitrary and hence liable to be set aside.
e. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or order or directing the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext.P5 objection of the petitioner before initiating coercive action against the petitioner''s house and property.
The petitioner was the owner of the autorickshaw bearing No.KL 8A 975, which was sold to one Davis (4th respondent), as per Ext.P1, way back in the year 2009. It was thereafter that, the vehicle met with an accident leading to two claim petitions preferred by the injured before the MACT, Irinjalakuda as O.P.(M.V.) No.1499/06 and 1500/06. According to the petitioner, the above matters were entrusted with a lawyer by name T.J. Thomas of Irinjalakkuda, to conduct the cases, from whom no information was forthcoming. On a fine morning, the petitioner was served with notice under the RR Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court, as the petitioner is now on the verge of ouster from the property consisting of nearly 3 cents and the building situated thereon.
It is settled law that, when a specific remedy provided under the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act (under Section 173), the dispute is not liable to be entertained by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The factum of receipt of notice from the MACT stands admitted and no copy of the Award passed by the MACT is produced, nor is under challenge. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for indulgence of this Court to pursue the appropriate remedy, by granting some breathing time. In the said circumstances, while declining interference on merit, the petitioner is permitted to pursue other alternate remedy. Implementation of R.R proceedings vide Ext.P3 to P4 shall be kept in abeyance for one month, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue the matter as above.
Writ petition is disposed of.