IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28303 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT THENGUMTHARAYIL, PALLISSERIKKAL, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR) KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690521. 5. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-690536. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, J ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28303 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT The recovery steps initiated for realisation of amounts due under a Bank loan availed by the petitioner from the 5th respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. The main ground on which the recovery steps were assailed is that, the loan in question is only a 'Housing loan' and therefore the 5th respondent is not entitled to invoke recovery steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, because the category of the loan will not fall within the purview of the notification issued in this regard in Section 71 of the Act. It is noticed that the petitioner has got an effective remedy to object the proceedings, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, by approaching the appropriate authority under that statute. If any such objection is raised, it is for such authority to consider the same. Therefore I find no merit to entertain this writ petition to adjudicate the issue raised. W.P.(C) No.28303/2010 2 2. However, on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that, despite the challenges raised, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the liability in a phased manner, an interim order of stay was issued by this court on 14.09.2010 restraining further proceeding, subject to condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within two weeks thereof. Subsequently I.A.No.13774/2010 was filed seeking extension of time for compliance of the condition. On 11.10.2010, further time till 15.10.2010 was granted. It is reported that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, any further. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to challenge sustainability of the recovery steps, before the appropriate authority. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL RAHIM JUDGE. ss/- //True Copy// P.A to Judge