IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32186 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.D.VINCENT, S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, PUTHUKKADAN HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. VINCY VINCENT, W/O.VINCENT, PUTHUKKADAN HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, (VIA) IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., RETAIL BANKING SECTION, P.K.COMPLEX, KOCHI-32, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THRISSUR. 4. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, BY SC SRI.R.S.KALKURA GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K. SANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32186 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the revenue recovery steps initiated against the petitioners, for realisation of bank loan allotted by the 3rd respondent, for the purpose of purchasing of contract carriage vehicles. According to the petitioners, revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of the bank loan arrears is not sustainable, because the loan in question does not fall within the category of self-employment scheme or priority sector loans, and that the petitioners have already submitted objections in this regard before the District Collector, Thrissur. This Court by judgment dated 20.7.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 20403/2009 had issued direction to the District Collector, Thrissur to consider and dispose of such objections. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the District Collector holding that the objections raised by the petitioners deserves no merit and therefore the recovery steps can be proceeded with. 2. Against Ext.P4 order, the petitioners have preferred statutory revision (Ext.P5) as provided under Section 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act, before the 4th respondent . Petitioners have also sought for interim stay. It is for the petitioners to work out their statutory remedy before the 4th respondent. 3. Therefore I am of the opinion that the matter can be disposed W.P.(C) No. 32186 of 2009 -2- of directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the statutory revision petition as well as in the stay petition. Hence the 4th respondent is directed to consider and pass orders either on the stay application or on the revision petition, if such revision petition is validly instituted, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further directed that the respondents shall keep the recovery proceedings initiated, in abeyance for a period of one month from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to move for interim reliefs before the 4th respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE es W.P.(C) No. 32186 of 2009 -3- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32186 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 11th November, 2009