IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2734 of 2008(A)
1. PRASEETHA E.T., W/O.T.A.UDAYAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. RAJITHA K.P., W/O.LATE GOKULDAS,
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.
3. ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED,
4. V.T. VINODKUMAR, S/O. VASUDEVAN
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :22/02/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 2734 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 22nd February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The 1st petitioner availed a loan from the 3rd respondent
Bank for purchase of a Stage Carriage Bus. Apparently, the
vehicle was thereafter sold to the 4th respondent under Exhibit
P1 agreement. It seems that there was default in the repayment
of loan and there are rival versions as to whether default was
committed by the petitioners or by the 4th respondent or by both
of them. It is not necessary to resolve that dispute in the
present case. Petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings
under the Revenue Recovery Act, as evidenced by Exhibits P3
and P6. It is inter alia contended by the petitioners that
normally the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act are not
accessible to a Private Bank like the 3rd respondent and
therefore notices under the Revenue Recovery Act are without
jurisdiction.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
Mr.P.K.Suresh Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the 3rd
W.P ( C) No. 2734 of 2008
2
respondent Mr.R.S.Kalkura and the learned Government Pleader
as also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent
Sri.Narayanan. Mr.R.S.Kalkura, learned standing counsel for
the 3rd respondent submits that the vehicle loan is liable to be
treated as one in the priority list going by the RBI Circular
issued in that behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that even if it is so, they may not be comprehended by
the notification under the Revenue Recovery Act, which is
invoked by Private Commercial Bank for initiating proceedings
under the Revenue Recovery Act. This is an area on which there
is dispute and in my view, since what is challenged is the
jurisdiction of the competent authority under the Revenue
Recovery Act, it is only appropriate that the said dispute be
resolved by an officer at the level of the District Collector, in the
first instance.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following
terms:
i) Petitioner may raise these objections producing
therewith a copy of notification under the Revenue Recovery Act
by way of representation before the District Collector, within
W.P ( C) No. 2734 of 2008
3
three weeks from today.
ii) Thereupon, the District Collector – 2nd respondent
shall issue notice to respondents 3 and 4 to consider the
question as to whether the loan availed by by the 1st petitioner
is comprehended by the relevant notification under the Revenue
Recovery Act. He shall pass reasoned orders on this aspect.
This shall be done after hearing the petitioners and respondents
3 and 4, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
the representation by the petitioner. Further enforcement of
Exhibits P3 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance till the District
Collector takes a decision and thereafter it shall be subject to
the decision to be taken by the District Collector, in this regard.
Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with
a copy of the amended writ petition before the District
Collector, for compliance.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 2734 of 2008
4
K.THANKAPPAN,J
CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999
ORDER
W.P ( C) No. 2734 of 2008
5
25th May, 2007