IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25486 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ALIYARU KUNJU, PUTHENPURACKAL, MANAYIL.P.O., PANMANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 518. 5. CANARA BANK, THAMARAKKULAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN-691 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARINARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25486 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realising arrears in a loan account availed by the petitioner from the 5th respondent Bank. According to the petitioner, the Bank had filed a civil suit, which is pending disposal as O.S.No.884/2008 before the Sub Court, Kollam. Simultaneous initiation of revenue recovery proceedings is unsustainable, is the contention. 2. It is now trite law that despite filing of civil suit the financial institutions are entitled to invoke other methods of recovery, if permissible under law. Hence, I find no merit in the contentions raised. Eventhough dispute is raised on the correctness of the amount in demand, I am not inclined to entertain such contentions in a proceedings under Article 226, because the W.P.(C).25486/10 -2- petitioner has got effective remedy under the relevant statute. 3. Having confronted with the above situation, Sri.C.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, appealed to this court for indulgence in granting reasonable time to pay off the entire liability, in installments. Learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent is not favouring such prayer based on the submission that the loan account is in chronic default. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and rival submissions, I am of the opinion that eventhough interference on merits is not possible, indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in installments, within a reasonable time. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 & P2 notices in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner making payment of the entire liability, including future interest if W.P.(C).25486/10 -3- any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly installments falling due on or before 30.9.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the installments, the respondents are free to proceed with further steps of recovery. It is further made clear that the relief granted above is subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings, either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb