V.T.MAMMAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are husband and wife. 2nd petitioner was the Director of a Company by name M/s.South Indian Paranterials Pvt.Ltd, Edayar. It appears that in April, 1987, the Company availed of a loan of Rs.21.5 Lakhs from the KFC which was repayable in 73 instalments.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the 2nd petitioner executed a personal guarantee in favour of the KFC while KFC takes the position that both the petitioners are guaranteers. It appears that in 1990, the 2nd petitioner resigned from the Board of Directors and also transferred her shares to others. This was intimated to the KFC also. In 2002, Exts.P4 to P6 demand notices under Section 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act were issued against the petitioners for realizing Rs.1,11,46,137.00 with interest and other charges. There upon, Ext.P5(a) objection was filed before the District Collector. In spite of it recovery proceedings were continued and therefore, the petitioners filed O.P.25098/02 before this Court. That O.P was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment. In that judgment, taking note of the pendency of Ext.P7 filed by the petitioners to the District Collector, District Collector was asked to hear the parties and take a decision as to whether recovery can be continued against the petitioners. Petitioners say that they produced the judgment before the District Collector. Although the District Collector issued Exts.P9 to P11 notices scheduling hearing in pursuance to Ext.P7 judgment, petitioners were not heard and a final order in the matter has not been passed. While on the one hand, the matter was getting inordinately delayed, their property was under attachment since the issuance of Exts.P4 to P6. It is in these circumstances they filed this writ petition seeking to quash the recovery proceedings and also to lift the attachment over their property.

(3.) IN my view, the prayer at this stage is premature. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court had already directed the District Collector to hear the parties and take a decision on continuance of the recovery action against the petitioners particularly having regard to the plea of limitation raised and also the liquidation proceedings that were then pending before this Court. Government Pleader also has no case that in pursuance to the judgment, a decision has been taken.