IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29983 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PONNAPPAN, AGED 6O YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MUTHIRAPARAMBU COLONY, NADAKKAV P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.SAMEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 29983 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge is against revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (Ext.P2). The amounts sought to be recovered pertains to fine imposed against the petitioner in MC 30/2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. It is submitted that, against the order of the learned Magistrate the petitioner had already preferred appeal before the Sessions Court Ernakulam under Section 449 Cr.P.C., as Crl. Appeal 543/2010. It is further stated that the appeal was filed along with Crl. M.P. 2734/2010 seeking contention of delay in filing the appeal. Ext.P5 is a petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court seeking to suspend the order of the Magistrate Court, pending disposal of the appeal. The said petition was numbered as Crl. M.P. No. 2735/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is now posted 2 WP(C) No. 29983/2010 before the Sessions Court to 25.11.2010 and that the petitioner will be proceeding with the appeal before that Court. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 and if the amount is recovered pending disposal of the that will cause severe prejudice to the petitioner. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances prevailing, I am of the view that the recovery steps can be directed to be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the appeal which was already filed before the Sessions Court. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, for a period of two months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy from the appellate Court. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc