IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31775 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.A.JOHAR, AGED 30, S/O.ANTO, AINIKKAL HOUSE, MARATHAKARA P.O., TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (R.R), TRISSUR - 20. 2. I.N.G.VYSYA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 016. 3. USMAN.K., S/O.V.M.KHADER, VETTILAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PUNAYOORKULAM P.O., PAROOR, TRISSUR - 679 561. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI R.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 31775 OF 2008 G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Guarantor for a loan availed by the third respondent from the second respondent. Recovery steps are taken. The case taken is as follows: “Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 gives power to the Government to declare by notification in the Gazette the institution to which the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act can be made applicable and in exercise of the powers the Government has issued various notifications making the provisions of the Act as applicable to various Institutions. But, quite conspicuously, the 2nd respondent Bank does not find a place in these notifications and therefore the 2nd respondent cannot rely on the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for recovery of the amount. The only resort which the 2nd respondent Bank can initiate is by way of a civil suit against the borrower and the new guarantors WPC.31775/08 G 2 or by way of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the borrower.” 2. As far as the said ground is concerned, there was a notification issued under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act and all those Banks which come under the Banking Regulation Act will fall within the scope of the notification under Section 71. The second respondent also, admittedly, is a Bank regulated under the Banking Regulation Act. If that be so, there is no merit in the ground taken. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits on instructions that proceedings have been initiated against the guarantor and the borrower. If that be so, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. In fact, this Court had passed an interim order staying the proceedings on condition that the petitioner remits some amount. Extension of time for payment of the amount also was granted. Even now, the amount is not paid. In such circumstances, I do not see any WPC.31775/08 G 3 meaning in continuing these proceedings. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge