IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33889 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- INDIAN BANK, MAIN BRANCH, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. M/S.N.SUNDARESWARAN, PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691 002. 4. S.MOHANAN, S/O.LATE SUNDARESWARAN, PARTNER, M/S.SUNDARESWARAN, RESIDING AT SUNDARA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 002. 5. S.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O.SUNDARESWARAN, PARTNER, M/S.SUNDARESWARAN, RESIDING AT SUNDARA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 002. 6. S.MANJU, D/O.SUNDARESWARAN, PARTNER, M/S.SUNDARESWARAN, RESIDING AT SUNDARA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 002. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33889 OF 2008 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had sanctioned certain credit facilities to the Firm, M/s.Sundareswaran, an when there was default, took recovery proceedings. There were also amounts due from the defaulter to the State. There was an earlier litigation as evidenced by Ext.P5 Judgment. Therein, a learned Single Judge of this Court gave certain directions. Petitioner has produced Ext.P4 communication from the Assistant Commissioner to the Tahsildar, Kollam which would go to show that there are no tax dues for the period from 1970 - 1971 to 1999 - 2000. Complaint of the petitioner is that even though there are no arrears due to the Government from respondents 3 to 6, respondents 1 & 2 are not releasing the attachment or withdrawing the prohibitory order issued vide Ext.P9. It is pointed out that in Ext.P6 Encumbrance Certificate, the attachments are still noted. Petitioner has preferred Exts.P10 to P12 before the second WPC. 33889/08 H 2 respondent Tahsildar. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader, I feel that a decision should be taken on Exts.P10 to P12 at the earliest. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and take a decision on Exts.P10 to P12 in accordance with law, within a maximum period of one week from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. The second respondent will certainly consider whether the case of the petitioner that the entire amounts have been paid off is correct, and whether the continued attachment of the properties and continuance of Ext.P9 are justified. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge