IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33076 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRAN V.S., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VASU, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NHANGATTIRI POST, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATTAMBI- 679303, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), OTTAPALAM-1. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33076 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery steps initiated for realising amount due under a loan account, which was availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was availed as 'traders loan' for business promotion and the petitioner had effected repayment to the tune of about Rs.1.75 lakhs. Still the recovery steps was initiated at the behest of the 1st respondent seeking to recover a sum of Rs.7,33,225/- along with future interest. It is further contended that coercive steps of recovery was pursued without acceding to the request made by the petitioner to permit regularisation of the loan account. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that the loan in question was availed as early as on 26.7.2005 and the petitioner had remitted only a sum of Rs.25,000/-, towards repayment. It W.P(C) No.33076 of 2010-H 2 is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the balance outstanding payment as on the date of requisition was more than Rs.7,33,000/-. 3. Eventhough the dispute regarding correctness of the liability could not be adjudicated in this proceedings, indulgence was shown in restraining further coercive steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is reported that the said amount was already paid. 4. With respect to the liability there is no much dispute, but only correctness of the balance amount outstanding is challenged. I am of the view that such a dispute could not be adjudicated in a proceedings initiated under Article 226. The petitioner had failed to raise any such dispute before the appropriate authority under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore the writ petition deserves not merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off W.P(C) No.33076 of 2010-H 3 the entire balance in a phased manner within a reasonable time, subject to his rights to get the account corrected if there is any genuine discrepancy. I am of the view that eventhough interference on merit is not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the liability in instalments, within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with future interest if any due in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of two succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the 1st respondent Bank seeking for a copy of the statement of accounts, on which event the same shall be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner will be at further liberty to point out genuine discrepancy with W.P(C) No.33076 of 2010-H 4 respect to the account if any and if the Bank is convinced of any such discrepancy, the same shall be corrected and only the actual amount need be recovered from the petitioner. 8. It is further made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of Ext.P2 notice. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab