The petitioner bank has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed further in pursuance of Exts.P3 and P4 notices and also to issue notice to the petitioner with regard to the liability of respondents 4 to 6. There is yet another prayer that the entire assets attached by the respondent State be sold under the supervision of this Court and appropriation of sale proceeds be made among respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner, subject to final direction and quantum as determined by this Court.
2. Respondents 4 to 6 availed credit facilities from the petitioner bank. As they committed financial indiscipline, the bank filed O.A No.428 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam which passed final orders and Recovery Certificate was issued for ₹25,48,363.55 as on 30.04.2012. When the petitioner bank brought the schedule of properties for sale through auction respondents 2 and 3 intimated the Recovery Officer that steps were initiated by the Government against the aforesaid respondents for recovering the amount due from them to the State. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 proceeded under Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amounts due to them.
3. The petitioner alleges that respondents 2 and 3 have not proclaimed Item No.II Certificate Scheduled property for sale towards realisation of an amount of ₹41,12,055/- with interest fixing the date of sale as 26.07.2012. It is further alleged that no upset price was fixed based on real assessment of the value of the property. According to the petitioner, Item No.1 property (as per the Certificate Schedule) was not put to sale for reasons best known to respondents 2 and 3. The said property itself is more than sufficient to realise the dues of the revenue authorities; it is alleged. Therefore, it is alleged that if Item No. 1 in the Certificate Schedule of property is sold by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner bank would also be benefited by receiving the balance sale proceeds after liquidating the revenue claim. It is further alleged that the revenue authorities are not co-operating for the same stating that they have discretion to decide the mode of sale and priority over their dues.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 3.4.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Item No.1 property as per the Certificate Schedule is having a road frontage and, therefore, the same would fetch more value. Hence, it was requested that the petitioner be permitted to conduct auction in the presence of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and to remit whatever amount due to the respondent State so that the petitioner bank could realise the dues to them from the balance sale consideration, if any. Therefore this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions regarding the matter.
5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Tahsildar concerned has expressed his ability to take a final decision in the matter as the State has a first charge over the property and final decision on the suggestions made by the petitioner can be taken only at the Government level.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that it is only just and proper to direct the petitioner to approach the Government with a representation so that the money due to the Government as well as the petitioner bank could be protected.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Government with a proper representation for conducting sale of Item No.1 property in the schedule under joint supervision of the State as well as the petitioner so that whatever amount due to the respondent State could be realised first and thereafter the petitioner bank can realise the dues to them from the balance sale proceeds, if any.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE /True Copy/ P.A to Judge