High Court Kerala High Court

Doraiswamy vs Jayaraman.C. on 24 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Doraiswamy vs Jayaraman.C. on 24 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9998 of 2010(Y)


1. DORAISWAMY, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JAYARAMAN.C., UNION BANK OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :24/03/2010

 O R D E R
              P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C).No. 9998 of 2010
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive steps taken

against him under the Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by

Ext.P6 demand notice, issued by the 3rd respondent, for

realisation of the amount stated as due to the 1st respondent

under Ext.P1.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for

the 3rd respondent as well. Considering the limited nature of

the relief prayed for and proposed to be given, this Court

does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent,

for the time being.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

being aggrieved of Ext.P1 order passed by the Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad, in C.C.No.16/2008, the

petitioner has already preferred the statutory appeal before

the 2nd respondent as borne by Ext.P2, along with Ext.P5

W.P.(C).No. 9998 of 2010
2

petition for stay. Eventhough, the appeal has been admitted

after elaborate hearing, no orders have been passed in the

I.A. for stay and without any regard to the pendency of the

above proceedings, Ext.P6 demand notice has been issued,

which is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition.

4. After considering the facts and circumstances, the 2nd

respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P5 petition for stay, in accordance with law,

after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as

well as the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed,

all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in

abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
nl