IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 6168 of 2011(U) ---------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- - JOHNSON C.O., CHUNGATH HOUSE, JAWAHAR ROAD, ANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.K.S.HASEENA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-1. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (2), THRISSUR-1. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRISSUR SME BRANCH, THRISSUR-1, REP.BY ITS MANAGER. *ADDL. R4 & R5 IMPLEADED *4. THULASI ANILDAS, W/O. ANILDAS V.T., VELLANGALLUR HOUSE, POST PUNKUNNAM, TRICHUR. *5. RAMESH K.V., KUTTIKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, POST POOTHOLE, THRISSUR. *IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 14/3/11 IN I.A. NO. 4186/11. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 6168 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING COLLECTORATE FILE NO. 2010/54029/8 AND TALUK (RR2) FILE NO. 2010/5882/8/600 DATED 04.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING COLLECTORATE FILE NO. 2010/54029/8 AND TALUK (RR2) FILE NO. 2010/5882/8/600 DATED 04.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 08.02.2010 IN O.S. NO. 243/2010 IN THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 6168 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent through respondent 1 and 2 for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner to the 3rd respondent bank in respect of a cash credit loan granted to respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner submits that this loan is not one covered by a notification under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act and, therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 to 3 for recovery of the amounts are bad. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. He relies on the decisions in Jabbar v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. [2005 (3) KLT 510 (SC)] and Lekshmi Enterprises v. State of Kerala [2008 (2) KLT 2] in support of his contention that revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated in respect of this loan also. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner cannot now dispute the fact that amounts are due from respondents 4 and 5 in respect of the cash credit facility given by the 3rd respondent to respondents 4 and 5 and that, as a guarantor, the petitioner is labile to make good the said amount. In w.p.c.6168/11 2 the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge