IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30242 of 2008(A) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JYOTHIKUMAR, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, 123, THEKKETHIL VEEDU, 9 OORUPOIKA, MUDAKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, ING VYSYA BANK, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 30242 OF 2008 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a vehicle loan of Rs.6,80,000/= on 28.2.2005 for purchasing a lorry. It is his case that as he fell in arrears, recovery steps have been taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act at the instance of the second respondent Bank. Petitioner challenges the recovery proceedings. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount sought to be recovered cannot be recovered under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is contended that the second respondent is not a scheduled Bank. It is further contended that only when loan is advanced under any Development Scheme as envisaged in the Notification dated 12.10.1987, recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act can be resorted to. It is also contended that the vehicle was seized and WPC.30242/08 A 2 it was sold and no amounts are due. 3. A Statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent Bank. Annexure R2(a) is the master Circular regarding lending to priority sector. Ext.R2(b) is a Notification SRO No.1465/87 dated 13.10.1987 issued under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, providing for recovery of amounts due to any Bank on account of any loan advanced under various developmental schemes. “Bank” is, inter alia, defined as a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. “Development Scheme” is defined as follows: “(b) “Development Scheme” shall include all financial assistance given through the banks under the schemes approved by the State/Central Government or other Government agencies or the schemes administrated by the Development Department with a view to improving the living conditions of the economically and socially weaker section of the community.” WPC.30242/08 A 3 Ext.R2(c) is produced as the Notification dated 30.7.1999. As per the same, Clause (b) which I have extracted above, is amended and after the words “shall include”, the words “all priority sector advances and” shall be inserted, is the amendment carried out. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank on instructions would also point out that the amount realised by way of sale has been given due credit and the amount remaining to be paid is Rs.4,29,214/= as on 14.1.2009. It is the case of the learned counsel for the Bank that actually, the loan given to the petitioner is a loan coming under the priority sector covered by Ext.R2(a) in as much as it is a loan given to a Small Road & Water Transport Operator owning a fleet of vehicles not exceeding ten vehicles, including the one proposed to be financed. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I do not see any merit in the contentions taken by the petitioner. Originally, under a Notification issued under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, amount could be recovered by a Bank WPC.30242/08 A 4 only if the loan was given under any Development Scheme. Still later, in 1999, as already noticed, by the amendment, in respect of Institutions covered by a Notification under Section 71, the loans given under the Priority Sector also can be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to draw support from the decision of the Apex Court in Califf India Chambers v. Syndicate Bank (1999 (1) KLT 155 SC). That was a case prior to the amendment in 1999. The Court held as follows: “The main part of the notification postulates that a bank can invoke the provisions of the Act when the loan was advanced by the Bank under various development schemes. The expression “development scheme” has been defined in clause (1) of the explanation. The said definition is an inclusive definition. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has not been able to show that the bank has framed any development scheme and the loan was advanced by the respondent-Bank to Appellants 1 and 2 under such scheme. Nor, is there anything to show that any development scheme was approved by the State/Central WPC.30242/08 A 5 Government or other government agencies with a view to meet living conditions of the economically and socially weaker sections of the community and the loan was advanced to Appellants 1 and 2 under such a scheme. There is thus no material on record to show that the loan advanced by the Bank was under any development scheme as envisaged under the notification dated 12.10.1987. In these circumstances, the provisions of the Act could not be invoked by the respondent-Bank for recovery of its dues.” 5. That was not a case coming under the Priority Sector. Necessarily, if the matter was governed by the unamended provision, the recovery proceedings could be taken only in a case where the creditor was able to show that there was a Development scheme and the loan was given under the Development Scheme. That is not the position obtaining in this case. Here, the question is whether the loan was given under the Priority Sector. Admittedly, the petitioner was given a vehicle loan for purchase of a vehicle. Absolutely, no material or even WPC.30242/08 A 6 pleading is placed before this Court by the petitioner to show how the petitioner will not fall within the terms of the Clause which I have already referred to. Therefore, it can be treated as a loan under the Priority Sector which means that the recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act is permissible and legal. As already noted, the amount due is arrived at after giving due credit to the sale proceeds. In such circumstances, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/= kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE // True Copy // PS to Judge