IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 10919 of 2005(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PERVER CHANDRAN, W/O. CHANDRAN, CANOPUS APARTMENTS, BOAT CLUB ROAD, PUNE-411001, MAHARASHTRA. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, CITY OF SUKRAWARPETH, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 5. THE WESTERN INDIAN ELECTRO (P) LTD., PARASSINIKADAVU, KANNUR-63. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT DT.7.9.92. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WARRANT FOR CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY ISSUED U/S.9 OF MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR RECOVERY ISSUED BY R3 TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUNE. P4: COPY OF THE REQUISITION FOR RECOVERY UNDER KERALA R.R. ACT MADE BY R4 TO R3. P5: CHECK LIST DT.21.1.2003 TO R3. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN WP(C) NO.1343/2005 OF THE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.10919 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a director and personal guarantor for loan availed by 5th respondent from the 4th respondent. Standing Counsel submitted that recovery cannot be made from the assets of the 5th respondent. Therefore, personal recovery is initiated against the petitioner and other directors as petitioner along with other directors are personal guarantors for the loan availed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is not permissible in Maharashtra. However, Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act 1890 authorises recovery in District other than the District in which the defaulter is residing based on requisition made by the concerned Collector who initiated recovery proceedings. It is seen from Exts.P3 and P4 that proceedings under Section 69(2) is issued by the recovery authority authorising recovery by the Collector in the District in Maharashtra where petitioner is residing. Since recovery is permissible under the Revenue Recovery Act read with Section 3 of the Central Act abovereferred, the petitioner's challenge against the same is not tenable. The W.P. is 2 accordingly dismissed. If petitioner wants to raise any other contentions, the petitioner is free to raise the same before the recovery authority under the Maharashtra Revenue Recovery Act. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms