IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18448 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SHABU.C.M, AGED 30, S/O.MOHAMMEDALI RESIDING AT CHERUVAYIL HOUSE, VAZHANI PO THRISSUR, PROPRIETOR ROYAL IMPEX, TAJ BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, KECHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT THRIUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSIDLAR,(REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, TALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERY. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ENGAKAD, TALAPPALLY TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18448 OF 2008 U ==================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that for realising the penalty amount levied by the Foreign Trade Officer, recovery proceedings were initiated against him. As he was not having the means to satisfy the demand, the amount could not be realised and ultimately proceedings under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act were initiated. Finally Ext.P3 order was passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 65 and against which the petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision before the 2nd respondent invoking his power under Section 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is stated that the revision was rejected by Ext.P5, against which a further revision under 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act has been filed before the 1st respondent, copy of which is Ext.P6. Petitioner submits that final orders on Ext.P6 have not been passed so far and that in the meanwhile attempt is made to implement Ext.P3. It is in this background writ petition has been filed. 2. Since the petitioner has by filing Ext.P6 revision before the 1st respondent resorted to the statutory remedy that is available to him, I feel that implementation of Ext.P3 should await the decision on Ext.P6. WPC 18448/08 : 2 : Therefore, in that view of the matter, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. 3. That the 1st respondent shall take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 revision filed by the petitioner with notice to him, if the same has been received and is pending. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will be kept in abeyance for a period of 10 weeks from today. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent within 10 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment and continuance of the interim order keeping in abeyance of Ext.P3 will be conditional on such production. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp