IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25011 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JAMES FRANCIS, AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF FRANCIS, THAIKKATTIL, LINK LANE NORTH, ALUVA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARINDRAMOHAN NAIR, SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA. 4. THE MANAGER, ALUVA BRANCH, CANARA BRANK, ALUVA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN, SC, CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 25011 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the coercive steps taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as borne by Exts.P4 and P5, which in fact have been issued in the name of the son of the petitioner, while respondents are proceeding against the petitioner and his properties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on enquiry, it has been revealed that the petitioner’s son had availed some loan from the 4th respondent and that the petitioner does not have any connection whatsoever in respect of the said cause of action. However, the respondents are simply proceeding against the property of the petitioner; with which, the petitioner’s son does not have any manner of right or interest whatsoever. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Bank submits that the 'son' of the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and that the requisition has been made by the Bank to proceed against the properties of the 'son' of the petitioner. Obviously, Exts.P5 and P6 have been issued in the name of the 'son' of the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 2 WP(C) No. 25011/2010 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to bring the course stated as being pursued by the revenue authorities particularly the 2nd and 3rd respondents to the notice of the 1st respondent by filing a proper representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the same is preferred within the time as aforesaid, the 1st respondent shall conduct an enquiry, which shall be finalized after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation as aforesaid. It is made clear that, till the proceedings are finalized as above, no coercive proceedings shall be taken or proceeded against the petitioner or his properties. It is also made clear that, this will not bar the way of the respondents in proceeding against the defaulter or his properties in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc