IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6427 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GEETHA P.R., CHARUVILA LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M/S.HINDUSTANY CYLINDER COMPANY LTD., KODAVILAKOM, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 6427 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a surety to the loan transaction availed by the fourth respondent, has approached this Court challenging the coercive steps initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking for a direction to proceed against the property of the petitioner in Survey No.23/13 of Kalliyoor Village; only if so necessitated after proceeding against the assets of the principal debtor/fourth respondent Company. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent, with reference to the specific averments contained in the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, explained the sequence of events including the factual position that the second respondent is not in a position to proceed against the assets of the fourth respondent Company in view of the fact that the respondent Company has been sought to be liquidated pursuant to the recommendation made by the BIFR and the matter is still pending before this Court as C.P.No.30 of 2006. W.P(C) No. 6427 of 2010-C 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if the difficulties and hardships expressed from the part of the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation is caused to be considered and finalised by the first respondent. Obviously, the said representation is pending before the first respondent, who is in no way connected with the loan availed by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab