IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10913 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P. MITHRA BABU, S/O.PADMANABHAN ASARI, CHALAKKADU HOUSE, UZHAMALAKKAL, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.MIJI JOHN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10913/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D.N.1032 DT.24.12.2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15TH MARCH 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10913 OF 2008 Y ==================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P1 recovery proceedings. 2. By Ext.P1, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for recovery of the loan availed of by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent. While admitting this writ petition on 01/04/2008, this court had granted interim order of stay on condition that the petitioner shall remit an amount of Rs.35,000/- within one month. Admittedly, this condition has not been complied with. 3. Even on merits, I do not find that there is any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Admittedly, the loan has been availed of and default has been committed. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to take recovery proceedings for realisation of the said amount. 4. Petitioner now contends that he is now entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme floated by the Central Government in the 2008 Budget. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, an application has also been made before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent WPC 10913/08 :2 : admittedly is incompetent to give benefit of the scheme and therefore, independent of the challenge now raised in this writ petition, if at all the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the scheme, I leave it open to him to pursue the same in appropriate proceedings. However, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent is only to be upheld and I do so. Writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp