SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45282

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARIAMMA V. ABRAHAM – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA – Respondent
RP 236/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1944 RP NO. 236 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 7381/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

MARIAMMA V. ABRAHAM AGED 41 YEARS W/O. THEJUS JACOB VARGHESE, 745/507, THOPPIL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689542 BY ADVS.

MATHEW KURIAKOSE J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR)

RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647

2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA THIRUVALLA TALUK, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE OFFICE, ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689542

4 NEERUMPLACKAL MATHEW AGED 67 YEARS S/O.THOMAS MATHEW, NEERUMPLACKAL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689542 5 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101

2-

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.SURYA BINOY SR.GP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ======================================================

R.P. No.236 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2020 =============================================================

Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2023

ORDER

The above review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 20.10.2022in WP(C) No.7381 of 2020. This Court disposed of the above writ petition with following directions:

“Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The petitioner is free to clear off the entire amount due as per Ext.P3 award in fifteen equal monthly installments commencing from 01.12.2022.

2. If there is any default in three consecutive installments, the respondents are free to proceed in accordance to law.

3. If the amount is paid as directed above, recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be deferred.”

2. As directed by this Court, the petitioner paid the first installment before the MACT, Pathanamthitta and the 2nd installment was not accepted by the Tribunal. In that stage, the

4-

petitioner filed IA No.s 1, 2 and 3 of 2023 before this Court, to accept document and to direct the Tribunal to accept the installments and also to extend the time to deposit the amount. This Court dispose fo those applications by an order dated

07.02.2023, which is extracted here:

“I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2023 I.A.1/2023 is filed to extent the time limit for making the payment of the instalment as per the direction in the judgment dated 20.10.2022. I.A.2/2023 is filed to accept the documents. I.A.3/2023 is filed to issue a direction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta to permit the petitioner to remit the amount in MACT Pathanamthitta in compliance with the direction in the judgment. When W.P.(C)No.7381/2020 came up for consideration on 23.01.2023, this Court directed the Registry to get a report from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The Tribunal gave a report dated 27.01.2023, which is extracted hereunder:

“With regard to the reference cited 2nd above, I may respectfully report the following.

The office of this Tribunal accepted the 1st instalment amount tendered as part of the Award in OP(MV) 1435/14 on 01.12.2022. Later the Revenue Authorities concerned intimated to the office that the amount due under revenue

5-

recovery proceedings may not be collected by this Tribunal as they will not be able to appropriate the charge for collection as provided under Rule 5(1) of The Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968. It was instructed to direct Smt. Mariamma.V.Abraham to remit the amount directly to the Revenue Recovery Authority. Accordingly, when the counsel for Smt. Mariamma.V.Abraham approached the office to remit the 2nd instalment, she was intimated the instruction received from the Revenue Authorities. The above matter is respectfully reported.”

In the light of the same, the prayer of the petitioner can not be considered in an interlocutory application.

With liberty to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top