IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 284 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27178/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. V. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, NIRMALIAM, T.C.NO.36/1492(1), J.P.NAGAR-18, KOTHALAM ROAD, WEST FORT, TRIVANDRUM-695 008. 2. M. JANARDHANAN NAIR, GAYATHRI, KULASEKHARAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 013. 3. R. BALAKRISHNAN, SAI JYOSNA, T.C.NO.5/1857, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. P.K. ASOKAN, FLAT NO.01, SNTC BUILDING, KOORKENCHERRY, TRISSUR. 5. M.V. THOMAS, PLOT NO.5, NEHRU NAGAR, KURIACHIRA, TRISSUR-680007 6. P. ARAVINDAKSHAN, 17/37(2), PARK AVENUE, NEAR TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, KUNNATHUR MEDU, PALAKKAD. 7. A. RAJAN, HEBBAR BROTHERS COMPOUND, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 007. 8. DR.P.MOHAMMED ILYAS, SHELL, COURT ROAD, MANJERI-676 121, MALAPPURAM. 9. SQN.LDR.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, CENTRE COURT, HOSUR ROAD, NEAR AIRTEL TOWER, COIMBATORE-641 018. (PETITIONERS 2 TO 9 ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI.V.RAJASEHARAN NAIR, THE IST PETITIONER HEREIN). BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN 2 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KSIDC), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND SECRETARY, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TAHSILDAR (R.R), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 5. TAHSILDAR (R.R), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, MALAPPURAM. 6. TAHSILDAR (R.R), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 7. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R),OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI. 9. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.F.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR. 11. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.F.C., THRISSUR. 12. ELCERA SUBSTRATES LTD., ERAVIMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU FOR R3 - R11 SRI.L.MOHANAN, SC, KFC FOR R2 SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 284 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed by the guarantors of loan availed by a company promoted by them from KSIDC and KFC. Arrears run into crores of rupees and since the financial institutions under the control of the Government failed to recover the arrears by sale of defaulter- company's properties, they have initiated revenue recovery proceedings by invoking the provisions of the RR Act by virtue of notification issued under Section 71 of the said Act. The case of the appellants is that recovery under the RR Act is not tenable in the first place as the arrears are barred by limitation and secondly recovery cannot be proceeded against guarantors. Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed stating that recovery proceedings are well within time. The learned single Judge before whom WPC was filed did not consider the case on merits, but left it to be decided by the civil court. Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that civil court is not an alternate remedy in the first place and secondly if statutory authorities 2 have no jurisdiction, then this Court should interdict against proceeding in the matter. We find force in this contention because if debt is time barred, then it affects the authority of the recovery agency from proceeding with recovery. In fact we do not see any reason why parties should be dragged to civil court, which is notorious for it's delays when the statute provides for a mechanism for settlement of disputes arising in the course of recovery. Section 34(2) of the RR Act specifically casts a burden on the recovery authorities to consider objections against recovery raised ;by defaulters and other parties against which recovery proceedings are initiated. Besides this, even in the course of recovery, if the sale made is irregular or vitiated by mistake, then under Section 53, an aggrieved party can maintain an application for setting aside the sale. The orders passed by the original authority are subject to revision at two levels, under Section 83(1) and (2) which provides for first revision to Land Revenue Commissioner (previously Board of Revenue) and second revision to Government. Senior counsel appearing for the appellants expressed doubt as to whether recovery agency which is the Tahsildar, will be able to appreciate the facts and decide complicated questions of law pertaining to limitation, guarantors liability under law, etc. We do not think so, because even assuming 3 that the Tahsildar needs legal assistance to decide these matters, it is to assist government officers in legal matters that the Government maintains a legal department and battalion of lawyers starting from Advocate General. We are sure if the Tahsildar has any doubt in the matter, he will take legal advice from the Law Secretariat or from the Advocate General's office. Therefore we allow the appeal vacating the judgment of the learned single Judge but leaving freedom to the appellants to raise objections before the Tahsildar with direction to him to proceed with recovery only if the objections are overruled. Tahsildar will consider each and every point raised by the parties and he is directed to complete the proceedings for recovery at the earliest and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4