IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 18477 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE KURUVATTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.M.RAJAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 55, `RAJEEVAM', KURUVATTOOR AMSOM PAYIMBRA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.SRINATH GIRISH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.) CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. K.PRABHAKARA NAIR, S/O.APPUKUTTY, KOLADIKATTU HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18477 OF 2008 - Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner bank submits that the property belonging to the 3rd respondent was mortgaged to it. However, the mortgaged property was proceeded against under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the sales tax dues and was ultimately auctioned. Petitioner on the strength of the mortgage it has, filed a claim petition and that was rejected by Ext. P6 order in which the 2nd respondent took the view that the Government debt has got priority over other debts. 2. Though this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext. P6, the learned counsel did not canvass before me against the view taken in Ext.P6 on the priority of government debt over other debts as held in Ext. P6. However, he only says that this charge also should be noted in the encumbrance. I am not in a position to accept this plea. Though, I asked the counsel to address me as to W.P.(C) No.18477 OF 2008 -2- whether there is any statutory compulsion to incorporate the charge in favour of the petitioner on the encumbrance, the counsel could not point out any statutory provision. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in requiring the respondent to do something which he is not statutorily obliged to. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-