IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No. 1720 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13817/2008 DATED 13/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, WILLINGDON ISLAND BRANCH, COCHIN-03, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. M/S.SOUTH ASIAN TRADE LINKS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX MRS.FARIDA HAJI VAHEED, 39/4572, PANAMPILLY NAGAR AVENUE ROAD, HIG-19, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36. 4. MRS.FARIDAH HAJI VAHEED, PROPRIETRIX, SOUTH ASIAN TRADE LINKS, G-211, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, AVENUE ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 5. MR.M.A.K.AZAD (M.ABDUL KALAM AZAD) G-211, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR AVENUE ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1720 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.13817 of 2008 dated 13th June, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. (2) The one and the only question that is raised and canvassed by Sri.Devan Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the Bank has the first charge and also the first right to recover the amounts due to them from the immovable properties mortgaged to the Bank at the time of disbursement of the loan amount. (3) Per contra, it is the contention of Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, the learned Government Advocate, that, the State has the first charge for realisation of the tax due to the State under the Sales Tax provisions. (4) In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled by various decisions of the apex Court. The Courts have held that it is the State which has got first charge and it can recover amounts due to them even by resorting to sale of the mortgaged properties to the Bank. W.A.No.1720 of 2008 2 (5) At the time of hearing of this writ appeal, we are also informed by Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Advocate, that respondents 1 and 2 have already sold the mortgaged property on 10.6.2008, and thereby have created a third party interest. (6) In view of all these developments, in our opinion, nothing survives in this writ appeal for our consideration and decision. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ appeal as having become unnecessary. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk