IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3247 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V. STANLY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, PLAVILA VEETTIL VEEDU, ANTHIYOORKONAM, MALAYIUNKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. *ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED ADDL. R4: BABU, S/O.VASU, KRISHNAKRIPA, NAGEERIPARAMBA, KOMMERI, KOZHIKODE. * ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/02/2011 IN I.A.1905/2011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3247 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Eventhough the complainant before the Magistrate Court was impleaded as additional 4th respondent I am not proposing to issue notice to that respondent in view of the limited relief proposed in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated for realising fine amount imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode in S.T.No.80/2006, which was confirmed through judgment in Criminal Appeal No.804/07 of the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-II (Fast Track), Kozhikode. The case arises out of a complaint filed by the 4th respondent against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in the appeal. W.P.(C).3247/11 -2- 3. It is stated that, against the order of the appellate court a Criminal Revision Petition was already filed before this court, along with a petition seeking condonation of delay as Crl.M.A.No.6610/10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court had already issued notice to the 4th respondent in Crl.M.A.No.6610/10 and the matter now stands posted before the revisional court awaiting return of service to the 4th respondent. Meanwhile, the revenue recovery steps was initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 demand notice issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Hence the petitioner seeks a limited relief to restrain coercive steps of recovery till the matter is being considered by the revisional court. 4. Considering the fact that a Criminal Revision Petition is pending consideration before this court and this court had already issued notice in the delay condonation application, I am of the view that the petitioner has to seek appropriate interim relief from that court. However, since it is submitted that the service of notice to the 4th respondent in the delay condonation application is not complete, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in directing the coercive steps of recovery to be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period. W.P.(C).3247/11 -3- 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to keep in abeyance further coercive steps of recovery on the basis of Ext.P1 notice for a period of two months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before the revisional court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb