ANITHA RAJEEV Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, what is under challenge is Ext.P2, a notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act for realising Rs.9,07,957 with other charges from the petitioner. The facts pleaded by the petitioner show that she had entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the 4th respondent for the establishment of a shrimp farm. The agreement provided for the respective rights and obligations of the parties. According to the 4th respondent, amounts due from the petitioner were not paid and it was therefore that the recovery proceedings were initiated.

(2.) TWO contentions are raised by the petitioner. The first contention raised is that in the event of default, remedy available to the 4th respondent is under Clauses 17, 18 and 19 of the agreement and that Ext.P2 recovery proceedings were initiated without taking recourse to the aforesaid provisions of the agreement. Therefore, according to the counsel, recovery proceedings now initiated against her are premature and for that reason calls for interference.

(3.) I have gone through Clauses 17 and 18 and in my understanding, both these provisions only contain the options that are available to the 4th respondent and are not condition precedents for taking steps for recovery of the liability due from a defaulter. This precisely is what the 4th respondent contends in para 6 of its counter affidavit.