IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 32672 of 2003(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SAJEEV P.S., AGED 27, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, PERUMBILTHOPIL HOUSE, P.O. ANJOOR, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MANOJKUMAR V., AGED 30, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, VADAKUMCHERY HOUSE, KAIPARAMBU P.O. PUTHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR, 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32672 of 2003(M) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 10.10.2000 BETWEEN THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM “HARISREE OFF SET PRINTERS”. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 07.08.2003. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE SECOND PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 07.08.2003. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32672 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging the steps for recovery of the amounts stated as due to the 3rd respondent Bank by resorting to the remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The case of the petitioners is that though they were partners of a firm which was run under the name and style “Harisree Off Set Printers” (joining hands with one Kishorkumar and Leela Ramakrishnan) who had availed a loan from the Bank, they subsequently ceased to be the partners and left the firm and as such, the Bank is not justified in proceeding against the petitioners. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent Bank and a statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank that the issue involved in this Case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this WP(C) No.32672 of 2003 -:2:- Court on 02.11.2006 in W.P.(C) No.27996 of 2003 preferred by the aforesaid Kishorkumar and Leela Ramakrishnan, wherein the present petitioners have been arrayed as respondents 5 and 4 respectively. The contention of the petitioners in the said writ petition was also that they had retired from the partnership firm and hence Revenue Recovery proceedings could not be initiated or continued against them, which proposition was held as unacceptable to the Court. It was made clear that the Bank was free to proceed with the recovery steps against the partners. At the same time, while rejecting interference in the writ petition, some observations were made with regard to the prayer to have their liability satisfied by way of availing the OTS Scheme and when the same did not materialise, the Bank was entitled to proceed further steps for recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that though an appeal was preferred by the petitioners therein before the Division Bench as W.A. No.960 of 2007, the same was not pursued and it was dismissed for default on 07.03.2011. The WP(C) No.32672 of 2003 -:3:- appellants preferred MJC No.183 of 2011 seeking the matter to be restored, but the same was also dismissed on 07.07.2011 and thus the matter has become final. 5. Going by the sequence of events as above, this Court finds that the petitioners herein were very much parties to W.P.(C) No.27996 of 2003 and are bound by the declaration made by this Court with regard to the liability in question. The petitioners are similarly situated like the petitioners in the aforesaid case and the observations made by this Court are equally applicable to them as well. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find any tenable ground to interfere with the proceedings pursued by the respondents. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb