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 MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1106 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10702/2008 Dated 02/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M.O. ESTHAPPAN, S/O. OUSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS, MOOLAN HOUSE, KOODALAPPAD, KOOVAPPADY (P.O). BY ADV. SRI.C.K.ABDUL RAHIM SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5/ADDL.6TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, SBT BHAVAN, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN. W.A.No.1106 of 2008 -2- 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL. SRI.K.JAJU BABU. R3, R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1106 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Mr.Esthappan, a partner of a firm had filed W.P.(C) No.10702 of 2008, inter alia, questioning Exts.P7 and P8. 2. Ext.P7 is purely an internal communication between the Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Kerala Financial Corporation and the Sub Registrar of Perumbavoor. In the said letter, the Tahsildar has only requested the Sub Registrar to make appropriate entries in the registers maintained in the Sub Registrar's office only to indicate that those properties have already been attached by the Kerala Financial Corporation. 3. Ext.P8 is a notice of attachment issued by the Revenue Recovery Officer of the Kerala Financial Corporation. Ext.P7 is dated 5-5-2005 and Ext.P8 is dated 13-4-2005. These notices are questioned by the petitioner in a petition filed in the year 2008. 4. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches on the W.A.No.1106/2008 -2- part of the petitioner in approaching the Court belatedly while questioning the internal communication between the Deputy Tahsildar and the Sub Registrar and the notice of attachment issued in the year 2005. 5. Even otherwise also if for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said notice, he ought to have made appropriate claim as provided under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act before the authority who had initiated revenue recovery proceedings. Thirdly, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction normally would not interfere with the administrative action of the Financial Corporation, unless the said action is either in violation of the Statutory provisions of the Corporation or if the Corporation has acted unfairly. The law on the point is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of U.P.Financial Corporation Vs. M/s.Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd (AIR 1993 SC 1435). In the said decision, the Court has observed as under: “In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation, or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e., unreasonably. Acting unfairly or unreasonably does not mean that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution can sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts W.A.No.1106/2008 -3- and deeds of the corporation and seek to correct them. That is not the function of the High Court under Article 226. Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints -- self-imposed undoubtedly -- of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless.” 6. In view of the reasons assigned by us, in our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the writ petition. However, taking a very sympathetic view of the matter has granted some relief to the petitioner. The petitioner should have been happy with whatever relief he got in the hands of the learned Single Judge. A most harmless order passed by the learned Single Judge ought not have been questioned in a writ appeal. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS