Abdul Gafoor vs Deputy Tahasildar (R.R)
2021 Latest Caselaw 964 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.696 OF 2021


PETITIONERS:

      1        ABDUL GAFOOR
               AGED 37 YEARS
               S/O. HAMSA,
               MAIKKARA,
               VALLUVAKKAYIL HOUSE,
               P.O.MUTHANGA,
               WAYANAD DISTRCT-673 592

      2        FAIZAL
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O. KUNHIPOKKU,
               VADAKKEDAM HOUSE,
               AMBALAVAYAL P.O.,
               PIN-673 593

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
               SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (R.R),
               SULTHAN BATHERY,
               WAYANAD DISTRCT-673 592

      2        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               NOOLPUZHA,
               NOOLPUZHA P.O.,
               WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 592

      3        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
               NOORMAL BUILDING,
               MYSOOR ROAD,
               SULTHAN BATERY-673 592



               SR.GP BIMAL K NATH,ADV P.K MANOJ KUMAR FOR R3

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.696 OF 2021

                                   2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of January 2021

The petitioners herein, suffered an award as O.P

(MV)No.442/2015 of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,

Vatakara. Liability under the award was cast on them,

on a finding that during the relevant time, 2 nd

petitioner did not have a valid license and badge. It

seems that, the petitioners thereafter filed an appeal

before this Court in 2012, along with an application

for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the

meanwhile Deputy Tahsildar has issued Ext.P7 notice of

recovery.

2. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that,

since the delay has not been condoned, the petitioners

could not move the appeal and seek an interdiction of

execution of the award as against the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr.P.K Manoj Kumar appearing for the third

respondent. Heard both sides.

4. It is submitted by both sides that, notice was WP(C).No.696 OF 2021

issued on the application of condonation of delay and

the matter is likely to be taken up by the appellate

Court without considerable delay.

Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of

the writ petition itself granting some time, to enable

the petitioners for bringing up the matter before the

Appellate Court and to seek condonation of delay and

also appropriate orders. All proceedings pursuant to

Ext.P7 shall stand deferred for two months, to enable

petitioner to move the Appellate Court and to seek

appropriate orders.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

Jms

//True Copy// P.A to Judge WP(C).No.696 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP(MV) 442/2015 OF MACT VATAKARA.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 17.03.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL IN OP(MV) 442/2015 DATED 25.05.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN MACA 3377 OF 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S DRIVING LICENSE.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-12-G-839.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 20.09.2020.

//True Copy// P.A to Judge