Shaffique, J.

1. The 1st respondent in the writ petition is the appellant.

2. Writ petition is filed by the 1st respondent challenging the action initiated by the appellant to recover the amounts due to the bank by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the appellant bank as working capital. There was delay in remitting the payments and ultimately the amounts became overdue. The bank filed a suit against the petitioner as O.S.No.856/2011 for recovering the outstanding balance amount of Rs.8.41 lacs. In the meantime, at the instance of the bank, the 3rd respondent initiated revenue recovery proceedings by way of Ext P4 and P5. This was challenged by the 1st respondent/petitioner on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings cannot be initiated as the loan advanced by the 1st respondent to the petitioner is not an agricultural loan nor was it advanced under any development schemes.

3. The appellant filed a counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge inter alia contending that by virtue of the notification issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of power under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, amount due to the bank under various development schemes including priority sector advances and all financial assistance given through the banks under the schemes approved by the State/Central Government or other Government agencies or the scheme administrated by the Development department with a view to improving the living condition of the economically and socially weaker sections of the community is permitted to be recovered by virtue of provisions to the Revenue Recovery Act. They relied upon two Government Notifications Exts.R1(a) and R1(b), i.e SRO No.1465/1987 and SRO No.797/1979 respectively.

4. Learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment in Jabbar v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. [2005 (3) KLT 510] wherein it has been held that the loans extended to the traders, fixing a ceiling upto Rs.5 lakhs will be liable to be declared as ‘priority sector’ and therefore revenue recovery proceedings could be initiated. However since the loan availed by the petitioner was for Rs.8 lakhs, the learned Single Judge held that the said judgment cannot have any application and that the respondents were not justified in recovering the amount by way of revenue recovery proceedings. It was further held that only after obtaining a decree from the civil court the bank was entitled to initiate revenue recovery proceedings as held in the judgment in Syndicate Bank v. Sheriff [2007 (1) KLT Short Note 63].

5. Though a review petition was filed relying upon the Master Circular of 01/07/2009 issued by the Reserve Bank of India wherein the various categories of priority sector loans have been mentioned which included direct finance to small enterprises including all loans to micro and small (manufacturing) enterprises and such service enterprises, the review was also dismissed on the ground that the petitioner can seek proper remedy by filling an appeal.

6. Annexure B is produced by the appellant along with I.A.No.944 of 2012. It is a Master Circular issued by Reserve Bank of India consolidating the lending in priority sector. Retail Trade is treated as one among the priority sector and reads as under:

"3. Retail Trade

3.1 Advances granted to retail traders dealing in essential commodities (fair price shops), consumer co-operative stores and;

3.2. Advances granted to private retail traders with credit limits not exceeding Rs.20 lakh.”

7. Annexure A notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 18/9/2009 under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as MSMED Act) is also produced. The notification deals with various services of Priority sector-Lending and Categorization of activities and services which inter alia includes retail trade also. In Clause (3) of the s