IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32454 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.S.SARATCHANDRAN, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PANICKER, ARANYA,CHENNANPARA, VITHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. S.SUDHA, W/O.K.S.SARATCHANDRAN ARANYA, CHENNAMPARA, VITHURA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAN THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., ANAD BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KSHB. BUILDING, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.32454 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioners suffered a decree in the civil court on a suit filed in 2003. The total accruals put for execution on the basis of that decree exceeded the limit of the jurisdiction of the civil court and the execution proceedings were transmitted to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. The DRT, thereafter, considered the matter and issued a final order. That has become final. Thereafter, the impugned demand notice has been issued by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act. Petitioners state that the amounts fixed for recovery amounts to infraction of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The civil court decree became final. The WPC32454/-8 -:2:- accruals would depend upon that decree debt. The amounts due on such execution has also attained finality by the recovery order passed by the DRT. As already noticed, that recovery order (final order), which is not produced in this writ petition, has become final. That finality cannot be re-opened in proceedings in writ jurisdiction, particularly when, the petitioners had not taken recourse to statutory appellate remedies available under the RDB Act. If there is any dispute as to the total quantum on the basis of the final order, that is a matter, which has to be raised before the Recovery Officer. The decision of the Recovery Officer will be available for further adjudication before the DRT and still further, under the RDB Act. Petitioners thus have further remedies, if needed. No ground of infraction of any constitutional provision, except the plea that the total outstandings have grown, is pointed out. But WPC32454/-8 -:3:- the mere plea that the total outstandings have accumulated does not demonstrate any infraction of even the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. No issue referable to Article 14 is also demonstrated within the format of law. 3. It is a matter of fact that the total outstandings have grown only because of the long delay in the recovery proceedings. I may also notice that, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the bank, the petitioner was granted time to make payments. For the foregoing reasons, while this writ petition fails, the Recovery Officer will ensure that the recovery will stand confined to the total amounts due in terms of the recovery certificate and nothing more and if the bank takes a decision on Ext.P5, that will be placed before the Recovery WPC32454/-8 -:4:- Officer, so that the total outstandings could be determined accordingly. Writ petition is so ordered. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.