ORDER : P. Jyothimani, J. The writ petitioner was working in the Revenue Department as Typist and in the year 1976, he was sent on deputation to the first respondent, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, as its Godown Superintendent and posted in Thenkani Kottai in Dharmapuri District. Thereafter, he was relieved from the first respondent-Corporation in the year 1978 and reverted to the parent department, i. e. Revenue Department. In the first respondent-Corporation, he was maintaining opening stocks and closing stocks as it was necessary for the post of Godown Superintendent. It is stated that in the year 1984, the first respondent has sent a notice intimating that there was some shortage of the articles which were under his control, against which, it appears that the petitioner has filed a writ petition. In the meantime, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1988 and he was allowed to retire. At that time, he was working as Tahsildar for Distress Relief Scheme at Krishnagiri. It is stated that in the year 1988, he was placed under suspension just before his date of retirement. At that time, since the second and third respondents have required the willingness from the petitioner to adjust the amount from his retirement benefits, he has given a letter of consent. It is stated that till date his gratuity amount has been withheld apart from the Provident Fund amount. In these circumstances, the third respondent has issued the impugned notice under the Revenue Recovery Act at the instance of the first respondent stating that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 57,416.45/-. The said Revenue Recovery proceeding is challenged on the ground that under the Revenue Recovery Act, especially, under Section 52-A of the Act, in respect of employees of the first respondent or any other Corporation, the amount could be recovered only if it relates to the loans and advances. 2. Mr. Sirajudeen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said Section 52-A of the Revenue Recovery Act will apply only for the recovery in respect of unpaid amount of loans and advances and therefore, the present impugned proceeding of the third respondent, at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation for recovery of the amount, which is not relating to any loans or advances received by the petitioner, is not maintainable. 3. 3. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent-Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd that earlier, when a recovery proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner has filed an application before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 559 of 1990 and the Tribunal has dismissed the said application, thereby, permitted the Civil Supplies Corporation to recover any amount of shortage caused to the Corporation by the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, the recovery of the balance amount through Recovery of Revenue Act cannot be stated to be either illegal or unsustainable, on reference to Section 52-A which is as follows: "Section 52-A: Recovery of dues due to the Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation and other Corporations etc.: Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken, all loans granted and all advances made to any persons: i. by the Tamil Nadu Agro-Industries Corporation Limited, Madras or ii. by such other Corporation (the share of which have been contributed, underwritten or guaranteed by the State Government) as may be notified in this behalf by the State Government in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, or iii. .......... together with such interest on such loans and advances and all sums due to the Corporations mentioned in Clause (1) and (ii) may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of this Act." 4. It is clear that the Tahsildar is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings only in respect of unpaid amount of loans and advances and the Act does not enable the recovery proceedings to be continued or initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act in respect of other recoveries including the shortages etc. If really, the first respondent Civil Supplies Corporation is entitled for recovery of the amount towards shortages, which are arrived at after conducting enquiry, framing definite charges, then it is for the first respondent Corporation to take appropriate action for making such recovery and not by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. If really, the first respondent Civil Supplies Corporation is entitled for recovery of the amount towards shortages, which are arrived at after conducting enquiry, framing definite charges, then it is for the first respondent Corporation to take appropriate action for making such recovery and not by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. Since under Section 52-A of the Revenue Recovery Act, recovery is possible only in respect of non payment of loans and advances, and the amounts sought to be recovered under the impugned notice are not relating to the unpaid loans and advances, I am of the considered view, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that invoking of Revenue recovery proceedings by the third respondent at the instance of the first respondent is uncalled for. However, it is open to the first respondent to take appropriate steps for recovery in the manner known to law, if so advised. Therefore, impugned proceedings initiated by the third respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act stands set aside. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice of the third respondent is set aside. No costs.