The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
A] Call for the entire records leading to Exhibit P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction .
B] Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby direct the respondents not to initiate any recovery proceeding against the petitioner in respect of loan account bearing no. MTL 7212 stands in the 4th respondent bank.
D] Grant such other relieves which are just and necessary in the interest of justice.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitoner submits that the loan was availed in the year 2004 under the PMRY Scheme and is hopelessly barred by limitation. The debt, if at all any which is barred by limitation, is not liable to be recovered invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision in 1999(2) KLT W.P.(C)No.34323 OF 2014 2
146. (State of Kerala vs. Y.R. Kallayanikutty)
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the factual position has been verified, when it has been revealed that no revival letter has been issued by the petitioner and as such, the Bank has already instructed the revenue authorities to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings.
The above submission is recorded. In the above circumstance, no further orders are called for . The writ petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk