IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 20TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 7988 of 2011 (W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- JOSE JOSEPH, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MANAPPATT HOUSE, PARATHODU P.O., PODIMATTOM, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY-686 507.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
3. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, KANJIRAPPALLY BRANCH-686507. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WP(C).No. 7988 of 2011 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 ON 14.07.2009 DEMANDING THE PAYMENT OF RS.13,22,291- TO THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 14 07.2009. P3 COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ADDITIONAL PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER FOR REVENUE ON 28.07.2009 TO THE PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28 08.2009 EVIDENCING THE FACT OF PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,64,479/- IN COMPLIANCE OF EXHIBIT P3 DIRECTION. P5 COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 29.09.2009 AND 28.10.2009. P6 COPY OF THE SUMMONS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).7988/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent Bank. Recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank as per Exts.P1 and P2. Subsequently, the Bank also filed O.A.342/10 before the DRT, Ernakulam. It is contending that during the pendency of O.A recovery proceedings cannot be continued, this writ petition is filed.
2. It is seen that by order dated 15.3.2011, this Court granted stay of recovery subject to the petitioner remitting Rs.5,00,000/-. According to the counsel for the Bank, this order has not been complied with. Even according to him, when more than one remedy is available, Bank is always at liberty to pursue either one of them or both of them. In this case, the fact that the Bank has W.P.(C).7988/11 2 filed an O.A before the DRT, does not prevent the Bank in pursuing recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. If that be so, there is nothing illegal in Exts.P1 and P2. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge