IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9998 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER :- ------------------- DORAISWAMY, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY, AGED 69 YEARS, GOKUL GARDENS, MANALI ROAD, NERUGAKKAD, KALLEPPULLI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS :- ----------------------- 1. JAYARAMAN.C., UNION BANK OF INDIA, AYALOOR P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN STANDING COUNSEL MR.A.S.P.KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 9998 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive steps taken against him under the Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Ext.P6 demand notice, issued by the 3rd respondent, for realisation of the amount stated as due to the 1st respondent under Ext.P1. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent as well. Considering the limited nature of the relief prayed for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent, for the time being. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, being aggrieved of Ext.P1 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad, in C.C.No.16/2008, the petitioner has already preferred the statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent as borne by Ext.P2, along with Ext.P5 W.P.(C).No. 9998 of 2010 2 petition for stay. Eventhough, the appeal has been admitted after elaborate hearing, no orders have been passed in the I.A. for stay and without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, Ext.P6 demand notice has been issued, which is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 petition for stay, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl