IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3823 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANDAS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, THUNDIL HOUSE, CHERIYAZHEEKKAL, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPAD P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAPPAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 3823 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act whereby the amount as stipulated therein is sought to be realized from the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability is in respect of the father, who is no more. In fact, father of the petitioner was a surety to the accused in 440/1994, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Adoor. When the accused failed to appear before the Court, MC case was registered against the father of the petitioner, after cancelling the bail bond. It is in furtherance to the subsequent turn of events, that the bond amount is sought to be realized by issuing Ext.P1 under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the impugned proceedings and intends to file statutory appeal before the Sessions Court concerned. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the accused in C.C. 440/1994 subsequently turned up before the Trial Court and on conclusion of the trial he was acquitted, simultaneously adding WP(C) No.3823/2010 2 that some breathing time might be given to enable the petitioner, to pursue the statutory remedy. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, observing that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the statutory remedy, challenging the order passed by the concerned Magistrate in MC 68/96. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc