IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25450 of 2010(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SIVAPRASAD, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KARTHIKA, EDAVA, KAPPIL P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VARKALA BRANCH, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKIZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 25450 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realization of amounts due to the first respondent from the petitioner, in a loan transaction. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Eventhough various contentions are raised challenging validity of Ext.P1 notice, they are not found to be legally tenable. The petitioner has not raised any dispute against the action initiated, before any appropriate authority under the provisions of the said Act. 2. However, as a gesture of indulgence, this Court issued an interim order on 13.08.2010, restraining further actions, on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- within one week. Petitioner filed I.A. 11807/2010 seeking extension of time for compliance of the condition. On 02.09.2010, further time was granted 2 WP(C) No. 25450/2010 for ten days for payment of the amount, making it clear that on failure the Writ Petition will be dismissed. It is reported that the petitioner has not so far complied with the condition. Therefore it is evident that any interference with respect to the impugned proceedings is not at all warranted. 3. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the first respondent Bank seeking 'One Time Settlement' and the Bank in considering any settlement on the basis of such request. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc