Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to determine the preferential claim of the Government of Kerala over the properties mortgaged to the Banking Institutions is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. State Government and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes have approached this court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated by the Recovery Officer of the debt Recovery Tribunal for sale of the various properties belonging to respondents 1 to 5. On enquiry made by the second petitioner it was noticed that some of the properties of respondents 1 to 5 were attached on behalf of Indian Overseas Bank on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam. State maintains the stand that it has got first charge over the various properties brought to sale by the recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. An amount of Rs.9,73,64,415/- is due from the first respondent towards sales tax arrears for the years 1972-73 to 1995-96. Second petitioner had already issued assessment orders after issuing assessment notice to all the parties and after obtaining reply from the first respondent, assessment orders have already been served on the first respondent. Demand notices were issued for salestax, surcharge, central salestax and interest for all those years concerned and after accepting the notice the first respondent refused to comply with the demand. State has already taken steps to recover the amount through the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. An amount of Rs.47,06,670/- is also due to the State by way of Salestax arrears from the second respondent, for the years 1975-76 to 1996-97. Second petitioner however completed the statutory formalities and passed assessment orders and served the same on the second respondent along with the demand notice. Since second respondent did not respond revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated by the State under the Revenue Recovery Act.

3. State also initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,36,27,260/- from the third respondent towards salestax arrears for the years 1970-71 to 1995-96. Assessment orders were served on the third respondent. Since there was no response revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against third respondent as well. From the fourth respondent an amount of Rs.5,21,897/- is due towards salestax arrears for which demand notice has already been issued to him. There was no response from the fourth respondent and hence revenue recovery proceedings have already been initiated. From the fifth respondent an amount of Rs.8,27,63,201/- is due to the State towards arrears of salestax for the years 1980-81 to 1994-95. Assessment orders have already been passed and demand notices were issued. Since there was no response, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated. State has got the first charge over the properties belonging to respondents 1 to 5 over which they have already initiated revenue recovery proceedings. At this juncture they came across Ext.P6 proclamation of sale issued by the recovery officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal for sale of its properties so as to discharge the liabilities due to Indian Overseas Bank.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue Sri Raju Joseph submitted that State has got priority in the matter of recovery of salestax dues over the equitable mortgage created by the defaulters in favour of the Bank. Reference was made to Section 26B of the Kerala General Salestax Act, 1963. Counsel therefore submitted that the Recovery Officer of the D.R.T. has no jurisdiction over the properties on which State has got first charge by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 26B of the Kerala General Salestax Act, Counsel submitted that the learned judge is not justified in directing the State to approach the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

5. Counsel appearing for the sixth respon