The petitioners challenge Exts.P6 and P7 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act [for short "the RR Act"] demanding an amount of Rs.20,13,87,103/-with interest at 19.75% per annum with effect from 8.2006 as also collection charges at 5.5%. The notices under the RR Act are under challenge in this Writ Petition inter alia on the ground that the provisions of the RR Act cannot be invoked for recovery of amounts due from the petitioners at the instance of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is a new Generation Bank, and it is not in the public sector. The petitioners challenge the notices under the RR Act on more than one ground.

2. It is firstly contended that the 3rd respondent has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.227/06. It is then contended that the 3rd respondent has also invoked the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (Act 54/02) (for short Securitization Act) and in exercise of the powers under 5.13(4) of the Securitization Act, some of the mortgaged properties have been taken possession of by the 3rd respondent. At the same time, the impugned notices under the RR Act have been issued for recovery of amounts due to the Bank. The petitioners contend that it is not open to the 3rd respondent to prosecute 3 parallel remedies at the same time under the Recovery of Debts (Due to Banks and Financial Institutions) Act, the Securitization Act and under the RR Act.

3. It is then contended by the petitioners that the amounts due to the 3rd respondent cannot be recovered by recourse to the provisions of the RR Act, as the provisions of the RR Act can be involved only for amounts comprehended by the notification issued under the RR Act declaring recovery of certain categories of amounts due to banks and financial institutions as recoverable under the provisions of the said Act. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Califs India Chambers vs. Syndicate Bank (1999 (1) KLT 155).

4. I heard learned counselor the petitioners Sri. Sreelal Warrier, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri. K.K. John and Mr. Mathew George Vadakkel, Senior Government Pleader.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not open to the 3rd respondent to prosecute the three remedies under the three Acts for recovery of the same amount simultaneously. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court reported in Sheriff vs. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 873).

6. Mr. John, on the other hand, submits that the right available to a bank or financial institution to prosecute the remedies under the Securitization Act on the one hand, and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act [Act 51/93 (for short "DRT Act") is recognized by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in M/s. Transcore vs. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 712).

7. Normally, the validity of the proceedings under the RR Act will have to be judged with reference to the provisions of the enactment. Is there anything in the enactment which stands in the way of the creditor seeking recovery of amounts due from a defaulter, which is otherwise recoverable by recourse to the provisions of the RR Act, merely because the creditor has already taken steps either under the DRT Act or under the Securitization Act for recovery of the same amount? A perusal of the provisions of the RR Act will show that there is no statutory bar in proceeding under the RR Act for recovery of amounts, which are otherwise due, in terms of the provisions of the RR Act. If the amount, which is sought to be recovered, comes under the category of public revenue due under the RR Act within the meaning of S.2 (j) of the Act and if the person is a defaulter within the meaning of

7.S.2 (e) of the Act, then the provisions of the RR Act could be, invoked for recovery of such amounts. I may hasten to add, at this