IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29402 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.S.BABU, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 42 YEARS H/4, GALAXY NEW RAIN, PUNATHIL PADAM ROAD, KOCHIN-24. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHIHAB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, H.P.UNIT, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR-V), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THRISSUR-20. 3. VINU ANTONY, W/O.ANTONY, KUTTANCHALIL, URAKAM, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683517. 4. DEEPA T.P., AGED 35 YEARS, H/4, GALAXY NEW RAIN, PUNATHIL PADAM ROAD, KOCHI-24. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 29410 OF 2010 ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 29402 OF 2010 & 29410 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in both these cases is against revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realizing amounts due to the first respondent. But on a perusal of Exts.P1 to P3 notices in WP(C) No. 29402/2010 and Exts.P1 and P2 notices in WP(C) No. 29410/2010, it is evident that the revenue recovery actions initiated is not against the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 29402/2010, who is the first petitioner in WP(C) No. 29410/2010, was the Power of Attorney holder of the respective guarantors on behalf of whom guarantee was executed before the 1st respondent. But it is noticed that these Writ Petitions were filed not on behalf of the guarantors. 2. Under the above circumstances, it could not be said that the petitioners are persons aggrieved by the proceedings which are impugned in these Writ Petitions. 2 WP(C) No. 29402/2010 & 29410/2010 Hence these Writ Petitions are dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the aggrieved persons to seek appropriate reliefs. 3. It is also made clear that the second petitioner in WP(C) No. 29410/2010 is at liberty to challenge proceedings if any initiated against her for realizing amounts due to the first respondent. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc