IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26020 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJESH.R., RAJESH BHAVAN, KAIVANVILA VEEDU, NADOORKIOLLA, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 512. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), NEYYATTINKARA-695 121. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MARAKADA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036. R3 BY SRI. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26020 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Revenue recovery steps initiated for realising amounts due in a loan account, which was availed by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is stated that the loan in question is an agricultural crop loan, and as such the petitioner is entitled for benefits of waiver of interest and penal interest as contemplated in various debt relief schemes declared by the Central Government and the State Government. However, the petitioner is not in a position to claim any such benefit based on any particular notification. Further contention raised is that, the proceedings initiated is not sustainable because the loan in question will not fall within any of the categories of loans for which method of recovery is provided under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as per the relevant notification issued under Section 71 of the said Act. W.P.(C).26020/10-B -2- Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent stoutly refuted the above contention based on the submission that the loan transaction in question is squarely coming within the priority sector for which the Bank is enabled by virtue of the notification to resort method of recovery as provided under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Even though the contentions on merits were not appealable, as a gesture of indulgence, this court had stayed further recovery steps subject to the condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the said amount was already paid. Despite the contentions in the writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner conceded that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the entire balance, provided reasonable time is granted for payment in a phased manner. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the relief sought for can be allowed without prejudice to rights of the 3rd respondent to recover the amount in case of default. 5. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to keep in abeyance further steps of recovery W.P.(C).26020/10-B -3- pursuant to Ext.P2 & P3 notices, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in 8 (eight) equal monthly installments falling due on or before 15.11.2010 and on or before the 15th day of every succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the installments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb