IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30463 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SANJAY GUPTA, DOOR NO.41/3089, ST.VINCENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM NOW AT HOUSE NO. 285, KRIPA HOUSE, CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNANN SRI.A.R.EASWARLAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OFKERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR RR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKKARA VILLAGE, 5. PRIMA INDUSTRIES LTD., 31/536 PRIMA HOUSE, S.KALAMASSERY, COCHIN 682 033,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2 SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.30463 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P11 and P11(a), which are notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeks a direction to restrain respondents 1 to 4 from taking any coercive step to recover the amount demanded as per Exts.P11 and P11(a) and for a declaration that Exts.P11 and P11(a) are issued without jurisdiction and in violation of Ext.P1 agreement and that the amount demanded is not an amount due within the meaning of Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act. He also seeks a direction to the third respondent to dispose of Ext.P12 objection and to restrain respondents 2 to 4 from further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P11 and P11(a). 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rajan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Petitioner approached this court earlier and it culminated in Ext.P7 judgment. Therein the writ petition came to be closed leaving freedom to respondents 1 and 3 to proceed for recovery. Ext.P10 is an order passed in AR. 41 of 2005, that is apparently an arbitration case filed by the WPC.30463/2008. 2 petitioner, which came to be dismissed finding that there is no justification to entertain the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has moved a review petition in Exts.P7 and P10. 4. I feel that having regard to Exts.P7 and P10 judgment I need not consider the question raised in the writ petition and this writ petition is dismissed. But this will be without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner in the review petitions filed against Exts.P7 and P10. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb