IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8841 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYARAJ.T.R., S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THURUTHUPARAMBU, ANNALLOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.G.SAROJINI SMT.N.C.SALINI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., RETAIL BANKING SECTION, 1ST FLOOR, SHEMA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI – 16. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY SRI. ADV. R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2008 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.K.G.Sarojini, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Mr.R.S.Kalkura and the learned Government Pleader Mr. Mathew George Vadakkel. 2. Petitioner availed a loan from ING Vysya Bank Ltd., which is a private Bank, for purchasing a commercial vehicle. It is admitted that re-payment of the loan was defaulted. Bank sent a notice. Subsequently, notice under the Revenue Recovery Act was issued at the instance of the third respondent, Bank. Writ petition has been filed challenging the notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, contending that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked at the instance of the third respondent, for recovery of amounts advanced by way of loan for purchasing a commercial vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge in the writ petition is confined only to the aspect of jurisdiction as regards W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2008 2 the proceedings under the Act and if there are any other contentions available to the petitioner that will be pursued only before the Civil Court as such. Submission is recorded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan in question advanced by the third respondent cannot be considered as one for a development scheme nor can it be treated as a loan in the priority sector. It can only be treated as a commercial loan and in such circumstances, provisions of the Act cannot be invoked for recovery of such amounts. 4. Mr.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the third respondent, Bank, submits that going by the Reserve Bank of India Circular, RBI/2006-2007/42, dated 3.7.2006, all loans advanced to small road and water transport operators owning a fleet of vehicles not exceeding ten vehicles, including the one proposed to be financed would come under the category of priority W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2008 3 sector and therefore, the advance made to the petitioner at present would be comprehended by the notification issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. 5. In my view, these are matters which ought to engage the attention of the competent authority under the Revenue Recovery Act. The principal or sole ground of challenge as far as the notice under the Act are concerned is that the amounts which are sought to be recovered are not specifically mentioned as a category in the notification issued by the Government under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act making applicable the provisions of the said Act for recovery of amounts at the instance of commercial banks. In other words, jurisdiction of the competent authority under the Revenue Recovery Act to set in motion the provisions under the Act is called in question. 6. A conspectus of the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act would show that the District Collector W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2008 4 plays a pivotal role in enforcing the provisions of the Act, for recovery of amounts due as public revenue. It is possible that by invocation of Section 71 of the Act, the amounts which are not strictly public revenue due on land can also be recovered by recourse to the provisions of the Act provided the Government has issued a notification in that behalf. According to the Bank, such notification has been issued as S.R.O.1465/87 as amended in the year 1999 and that provisions of the Act have been made applicable to advances included in the priority sector. If the amounts sought to be recovered is comprehended by the notification issued under Section 71 of the Act, obviously the competent authorities under the Act would be entitled to exercise powers thereunder. This is an aspect which, in the first instance, would warrant actual verification by the competent authority, preferably the District Collector. 7. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2008 5 following terms: (i).Petitioner may raise his precise objection to the notice under the Revenue Recovery Act impugned in this writ petition, before the District Collector, the fourth respondent, within a period of three weeks from today. (ii). On receipt of such objection, District Collector shall issue notice to 3rd respondent and after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent, the District Collector shall pass orders on the question as to whether the advances made by the Bank in the present cases to the petitioner will fall within the term 'advance' in the priority sector as per the Reserve Bank of India Circular and the notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act as S.R.O.1465/87, as amended in 1999. Decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of objection. (iii). Enforcement of the demand notices W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2008 6 under the Revenue Recovery Act shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the District Collector as aforementioned. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs