IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 3018 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23814/2007 Dated 26/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI P.KURIAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, CHIRANCHIRA P.O., KUNATHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. KURIAN MATHEW, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, CHIRANCHIRA P.O., KUNATHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), CHANGANCHERRY. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHETTEPUZHA VILLAGE, CHIRANCHIRA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 3. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 4. MANAGER, ING VYSYA BANK LTD., RETIAL BANKING DIVISION, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.3018 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23814 of 2007 dated 27th November, 2007. 2. Petitioner in the writ petition had availed a loan from the third respondent Bank for purchasing a tourist bus. There was default in payment of loan and therefore the Bank had taken the vehicle into custody and thereafter recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the amounts due to the Bank. 3. Petitioner, in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, had questioned the correctness or otherwise of the recovery proceedings initiated by the third respondent Bank. In the writ petition, it was contended that the copy of the order imposing liability is not served on the petitioner, and further the Bank should have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for realisation of the amounts due to the Bank. It was also contended in the writ petition that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever to initiate revenue recovery proceedings and further charging penal interest. 4. Even before approaching this court, the petitioner had also approached the Civil Court for settlement of accounts, decree of prohibitory injunction and for damages etc. The said suit has been disposed of by the Civil Court by its order dated 23.7.2007. 5. On the request made by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition had stayed the revenue recovery proceedings W.A.3018/2007. 2 initiated by the respondent Bank for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. One Lakh within two weeks. 6. On the further request made by the petitioners, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to release the vehicle on condition that the petitioners will not transfer or part with possession of the vehicle and will keep it in good condition and produce it as and when ordered by this court. The interim order passed by this court on 24th August, 2007 reads as under: “Even though counsel for the Bank opposed the release of the vehicle, I feel detention of the vehicle by the Bank will not serve the purpose of recovery of arrears. Therefore, there will be direction to respondents 3 and 4, whoever is in charge of the seized vehicle to release it on petitioner remitting another Rs.1 Lakh in addition to Rs.1 Lakh already paid pursuant to this Court's order dated 6.8.2007. Bank will file a statement of liability within two weeks from now. Release is on condition that petitioner will not transfer or part with possession of the vehicle, but will keep it in good condition and produce it as and when ordered by this court. Bank will release the vehicle immediately on petitioner producing a copy of this order and tendering payment.” 7. After release of the vehicle by the Bank, petitioner requested the court to permit him to withdraw the writ petition and submitted that he is prepared to pay the entire amount due to the Bank. 8. The learned Single Judge, on a request so made, has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, but however, has imposed a condition that if the petitioner does not pay the amount within three months from the date of the order, he will re-surrender the vehicle to the Bank on expiry of three months. 9. Aggrieved by the condition so imposed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this appeal. W.A.3018/2007. 3 10. We heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.Kesavan Nair. 11. The learned counsel would submit that having permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, the learned Single Judge ought not to have imposed any condition. 12. In our considered opinion, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel would not impress us. 13. By virtue of the interim orders passed by this court, the petitioner has obtained the release of the vehicle and after obtaining that release, now the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition. The court is of the opinion that the petitioner is due to the Bank certain amounts and if the vehicle, which has been taken into custody by the Bank, is released unconditionally, then the Bank would suffer. Keeping that in view, the learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount within a particular time frame and if the petitioner fails to do so, has directed the petitioner to re-surrender the vehicle to the possession of respondent Bank. We do not find any infirmity in the conditional order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, interference with the said order is not called for. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.