IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11275 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- SMT.SATHEEDEVI, W/O. KOLENGATTU SASIKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, MANNAMPATTU P.O., VARAKKARA, AMBALLOORE VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.VINUCHAND RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER, TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.87 EAST FORT BRANCH, TRICHUR-680 005. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), TRICHUR-3. 3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), TRICHUR-680 001. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP,SC,TRICHUR URBN CO-OP.BANK FOR R1 R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.11275/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18/1/2005. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PUBLIC AUCTION PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 252/2005. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.11275 OF 2005 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY,2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges the demand notice served on her under the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of the loan amount available by her with interest. An interim stay was granted by this Court on condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within a week's time. It is represented by the learned counsel for the lst respondent that the petitioner has not complied with the said order. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as demanded is a question, which can be decided only after taking evidence in the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has availed a loan. If so, the petitioner has to produce necessary materials on record to show that what is the balance amount due. But no such attempt is made. Further, she has also not complied with the condition imposed. Hence, it is not a fit case where the extra-ordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised in favour of the petitioner at this stage. If the petitioner has still any dispute -2- W.P.(C).No.11275/2005 regarding the amount demanded, it is open to her to challenge the same in an appropriate legal proceedings before other Forums. Leaving open such right of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv.