IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5890 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- FRANCIS, S/O. KANNAMPALLIL POTHEN, KANNAMPALLIL HOUSE, THACHAMPARA DESOM, THACHAMPARA VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR. P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANHIRAPUZHA BRANCH, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), MANNARKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK. * 4. SAJI FRANCIS, S/O FRANCIS, KANNAMPALLIL HOUSE, THACHAMPARA P.O., VIA MANNARKKAD (impleaded as addl. 4th respondent as per order dated 26.3.2010 in I.A. 4352 of 2010) R1 BY ADV. MR. P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 5890 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings pursued by the respondents, invoking the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, at the instance of the first respondent Bank, based on the requisition for realization of the due amount under a loan transaction, which was availed by the son of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the Writ Petition, is that, the property now being proceeded against by the respondents exclusively belongs to the petitioner, which is not liable to be proceeded against in respect of the liability, if any, of his son, the defaulter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was never a 'guarantor' or 'borrower' in connection with any transaction with the first respondent Bank. Absolutely, no question of any obligation is there on the part of the petitioner, to satisfy the liability of his son. It is also stated that, the petitioner does not have any objection to proceed against the property, if any, belonging to the petitioner's son, simultaneously producing the copy of the relevant documents with regard to the conveyance effected by the petitioner in name of his son and his wife as per the sale deed No. 4374 of 2003 of S.R.O., Mannarkkad. W.P. (C) No. 5890 of 2010 : 2 : 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents. 4. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the actual position has already been brought to the notice of the second respondent by filing Ext. P2 and that said representation could be taken as a proceeding under Section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Act, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext. P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, of course after hearing the petitioner, the bank and others concerned, before proceeding with further coercive steps. The proceedings as above shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd