IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6671 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUJATHA C.P. W/O.C.S.SOMAN, PRASANNA BHAVAN, KONGANMDOOR(PO),AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, TEMPLE ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. MR. PAULY MATHEW MURIKKEN,SC, CANARA BANK. R2 AND R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 6671 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th March , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondents 2 and 3 at the instance of the first respondent, seeking to realise the amount stated as due from the husband of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband had stood as a surety for a personal loan availed by one of his colleagues in the year 2007. The petitioner contends that, by virtue of the very nature of the loan, the respondents are not justified in resorting to the steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Califf India Chambersvs. Syndicate Bank [ 1999 (1) KLT 155 (SC)], holding that the provisions of the said enactment cannot be invoked unless the loan is in the 'development scheme'. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in any W.P.(C) No. 6671 OF 2010 2 view of the matter, the respondents are not justified in proceeding with the coercive steps, especially when Ext.P2 civil suit filed by the Bank is still pending; simultaneously adding that the properties of the petitioner are not liable to be proceeded against, for the liability of the husband. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that Exts.P4 and P5 notices have been issued not in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of the husband of the petitioner and there is no merit in the apprehension expressed by the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly in the absence of any case for the first respondent Bank that the petitioner or her properties are liable to be proceeded against in respect of the amount stated as due from the husband of the petitioner, the proceedings pursuant to Exts. P4 and P5 addressed and issued in the name of the husband of the petitioner shall not be pursued against the petitioner or her properties in any manner. It is further made clear that, this will W.P.(C) No. 6671 OF 2010 3 not deter the rights and liberties of the respondents to proceed with such steps against the husband of the petitioner and his properties, if any. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk