IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10627 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. BABU P.A,AGED 48,S/O.ANTONY, PANACKAL PURACKAL,HOUSE NO.XIII/612A, KANJIRAMCHIRA P.O, ALAPPUZHA. 2. JACOB ABEL,AGED 37,S/O.ABEL, SASTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,KANJIRAMCHIRA P.O, MANGALAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. MOHANAN P.V, AGED 52,S/O.VASU, POZHIKKAL HOUSE,HOUSE NO. 956/11, KOMMADY WARD,THUMPOLI,SOUTH ARYAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. PRASANNA KUMARI,AGED 40,W/O.SHOBHANAM PALATHARYIL HOUSE,KOMMADY WARD,THUMPOLI, SOUTH ARYAD VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA. 5. VINCENT, AGED 57, S/O.THOMAS, "MOONNATTUMUKHAN", HOUSE, POONKAVU WARD, PATHIRAPPILLY P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. svs. ...........2/-.... ...2... WPC. NO.10627/2011 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 561. 4. THE MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE CHERTHALA BRANCH,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 524. 5. M/S.VENICE COIR CONSORTIUM (P) LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.L.SAMSON, AGED 41, S/O.LEO,ARACKAL VEEDU, THUMPOLI, SOUTH ARYAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.688 008. 6. A.L.SAMSOM,AGED 41,S/O.LEO,ARACKAL VEEDU THUMPOLI,ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 008. R4 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10627 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioners are challenging the coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 to P5 notices issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears in the loan accounts availed by the petitioners from the 4th respondent Bank. Contention of the petitioners is that the 5th respondent is a company formed by the 6th respondent who had defrauded the petitioners by colluding with the 4th respondent Bank in sanctioning loans in the names of the petitioners and others, who claims to be illiterate and ignorant persons. It is the allegation that, huge amounts of loan, extending to the tune of Rs.40 lakhs, availed from the 4th respondent Bank was credited only to the account of the 5th respondent company and the money was appropriated only by respondents 5 and 6. Since no consideration with respect to the loan transaction was received by the petitioners, the recovery steps now initiated are ipso facto unsustainable, is the contention. Therefore the writ petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated. W.P.(C).10627/11 -2- 2. In the statement filed on behalf of 4th respondent Bank, the allegations as stated above were stoutly refuted. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner and 37 other persons had availed loans for setting up SSI units in coir industry and all of them had submitted personally applications for grant of the loans. It is stated that the loans were sanctioned and amounts were credited into their personal accounts and they have withdrawn the loan amounts using cheques. The allegation regarding collusion between respondents 4 to 6 was stoutly refuted. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the rival contentions, I am of the view that the matter could not be adjudicated in a writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Basically the dispute is regarding liability for repayment of the loans, which were raised on the premise that the transaction in question were forged and there was no passing of consideration. The question need be evaluated on the basis of various factual aspects as well as documentary and oral evidence. This court could not venture upon any such adjudication in this proceedings. It will be left open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority seeking relief in this regard. W.P.(C).10627/11 -3- 4. Under the above circumstances, leaving open liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for disputing the liability, the writ petition is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb