IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.2312 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).No.25829/2008, DATED 13/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------ SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU, 1A, SUMMER CASTLE APARTMENTS, DESAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KESTONE ROAD, KAWADIAR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.PATHROSE MATHAI (SR.) & ADV.SRI.SAJI VARGHESE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- vku/- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2312 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25829/2008 dated 13.11.2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition, solely on the ground that, the agreement between the parties provides for appointment of an Arbitrator and the resolution of the dispute between the parties by the Arbitrator. (2) The grievance of the appellant in this writ appeal appears to be that, till a decision is taken by the Arbitrator one way or the other, the revenue recovery proceedings that are initiated against him at the instance of the 3rd respondent need not be continued. (3) We have heard Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.M.Pathrose Mathai, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. (4) In our opinion, it may not be proper to resort to any coercive recovery proceedings till a decision is taken by the Arbitrator W.A.No.2312/2008 -2- who may be appointed by the consent of both the parties. If the proceedings under revenue recovery proceedings is continued, it may frustrate the entire proceedings before the Arbitrator. (5) In view of the above, we dispose of the Writ Appeal with a direction, no recovery proceedings shall be initiated by respondent authorities pursuant to request made by the 3rd respondent, till the Arbitrator, who may be appointed by consent of the appellant and the 3rd respondent, takes a decision. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS/vku