IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 20883 of 2008(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. BABU, S/O. KUMARAN, VENMANASSERY HOUSE, KOOTHUKADU, CHENAMANGALAM, PARUR, ERNAKULAM. 2. JANAKI, W/O. LATE VASU, VENMANASSERY HOUSE, KOOTHUKADU, CHENAMANGALAM, PARUR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), NORTH PARUR BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==================== W.P.(C) NO. 20883 OF 2008 - J ==================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were sureties in a criminal case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thamarassery. Obviously the accused disobeyed the terms of bail and that led to initiation of the proceedings in MC 21/07 against the petitioners. It would appear that the court has passed orders directing realisation of the bond amount of Rs.10,000 each and for the realisation of the same, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. Exts. P1 and P2 are the notices that are issued and according to the petitioners, though they have represented to the Tahsildar, that was of no avail. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery action against them. 2. Petitioners have no case that they have not executed a bond. If that be so, when the accused has violated the terms of the bail, the petitioners have rendered themselves liable to be proceeded against for the forfeiture of the bond amount. Admittedly, payment also has not been made. It was in these circumstances, revenue recovery action has been WPC 20883/08 :2 : initiated. In view of the above facts, I see absolutely no merit in the contentions raised against Exts.P1 and P2 revenue recovery notices. 3. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners pleads for an instalment facility to the petitioners to pay the amount due in terms of Exts. P1 and P2. It is stated that they are too poor to make payment of the amount in one lump. 4. I heard the Learned Government Pleader also in this. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by both sides, I feel an instalment facility could be granted. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioners shall pay the amount due in terms of Exts. P1 and P2 in 3 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment will be payable before the 30th of July, 2008 and the subsequent instalments before 30th of August and September, 2008. Subject to payment as above, further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2 will stand stayed and in case petitioners commits default in paying any one of the above instalments, it will be open WPC 20883/08 :3 : to the respondents to proceed further with Exts. P1 and P2. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp