IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18429 of 2008(R) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARIMUTHU, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, PANDAKALMEDU, THENKURUSSI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2) DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 3) VILLGE OFFICER, THENKURUSSI, PALAKKAD *ADDL.R4) BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, THENKURISSI BRANCH, PALAKKAD. *ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPELADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.8823 OF 2008 DATED 14.07.2008 BY ADV. V.GOPINATHA MENON GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18429 OF 2008 (R) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he had availed of a loan from the additional 4th respondent bank for purchasing a cow. According to the petitioner, the cow eventually died and default was committed in the matter of repayment. That resulted in recovery proceedings against him and Exts. P1 and P2 are the notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner submits that thereupon he filed Ext.P3 to the District Collector objecting to the recovery proceedings and that also did not yield any result. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Counsel contends that the liability is a time barred one and hence the recovery proceedings are illegal. It is also contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of loan waiver scheme recently floated by the bank following the policy decision taken by the Government of India for waiver of loans availed of by agriculturists like the petitioner. W.P.(C) No. 18429 OF 2008 - 2 - 3. It appears that these are contentions have not been raised by the petitioner before any one of the respondents so far. In view of this, I do not think that this Court will not be justified in entertaining these contentions which are raised for the first time in this writ petition. 4. Since the petitioner did not have any opportunity to raise the contentions before the authority concerned I dispose of this writ petition directing that the petitioner shall file an appropriate application before respondents 3 and 4 within 2 weeks from today and on receipt thereof, the aforesaid respondents shall pass orders considering the objections so raised. 5. It is directed that until a decision is taken on the application to be filed as above, further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2 will be kept in abeyance. It is clarified that if the petitioner does not file the application as above within two weeks from today, he will not be eligible for the benefit of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-