IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10710 of 2011(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- THOMAS MUTHOOR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.MATHEW M THOMAS, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 011. * ADDL. RE IS IMPLEADED 3. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 682 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. * IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/04/2011 IN I.A. NO.6420/2011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.10710 of 2011-K ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Limited relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection raised against the recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notices. The notices in question were issued under Section 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, respectively. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to amounts due to the additional 3rd respondent pursuant to an agreement pertaining to transfer of shares effected between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner on receipt of Exts.P1 and P2 he had submitted Ext.P3 objection contending that the revenue recovery steps is not maintainable. Learned standing counsel appearing for 3rd respondent points out that Ext.P1 itself is only in the nature of a show cause notice which provides an opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections if any against the proposed action. Under such circumstances, W.P(C) No.10710 of 2011-K 2 limited request of the petitioner is only for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 and to take a decision before proceeding with further steps for attachment of movable and immovable property. 2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent. It is contended that the objection raised is not at all sustainable. However, I am not proposing to adjudicate upon merits of the objections raised or its sustainability. Since the 2nd respondent is in seizin of the matter, ends of justice will be served if Ext.P3 is considered by that authority and a decision thereof is taken and intimated to the petitioner. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 and to take a decision, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the additional 3rd respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P(C) No.10710 of 2011-K 3 4. It is made clear that further coercive steps of recovery can be proceeded only after taking a decision as directed above. However, it is made clear that attachment if any effected with respect to immovable property will continue. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.10710 of 2011-K 4