JUDGMENT : The Federal Bank Ltd. which is a “Scheduled Bank”, impugns Ext.P1 letter issued by the Government to the Land Revenue Commissioner and to the District Collectors, informing them that they are intending to amend the Revenue Recovery Act and bring in provisions enabling them to offer instalments to defaulters; and hence that all further recovery under the present Statutory Scheme be deferred. 2. Sri. Mohan Jacob George – learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Bank, submitted that, though his client does not, at this time, speak against the competence of the Government to bring out the proposed amendments to the Revenue Recovery Act – which he explained will be dealt with appositely at the time when it is done -their stand that all action under the Revenue Recovery Act will stand deferred, until the afore event is to take place in future, is mischievous and intended to offer undue advantage to persons who have committed default even intentionally. He argued that this offers premium to dishonesty, though conceding that, in some exceptional cases, there may be situations where the borrowers may require indulgence, which his client will also consider appositely, if and when approached. He submitted that, therefore, an omnibus order to the Land Revenue Commissioner and the District Collectors, as made in Ext.P1, to stop all continuing revenue recovery action, until the proposed amendments are carried through is illegal and unlawful. 3. In response, Sri. Ashwin Sethumadhavan – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the reason which impelled the Government to issue Ext.P1 is manifest from its contents, namely, that they were obtaining several representations from borrowers, seeking indulgence to pay off the defaulted debt in instalments; and that “Intelligence” had also been garnered through relevant sources that, if such indulgence is not granted, some of them may even commit horrendous actions and that for this, certain “suicides squads” had been proposed, or considered by groups of people. He submitted that, therefore, the Government thought it better to amend the Revenue Recovery Act itself, to offer indulgence by way of permission to pay off the debt in instalments; and that it is only therefore, that, as a temporary measure, Ext.P1 has been issued. 4. Sri. He submitted that, therefore, the Government thought it better to amend the Revenue Recovery Act itself, to offer indulgence by way of permission to pay off the debt in instalments; and that it is only therefore, that, as a temporary measure, Ext.P1 has been issued. 4. Sri. Ashwin Sethumadhavan, thereafter, submitted that, as has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the bill to amend the Revenue Recovery Act is yet to be placed before the current session of the Kerala Legislative Assembly; and therefore, that any further recovery through the present processes would create social upheaval. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 5. The afore dialectical positions of the parties would render it perspicuous that it is not necessary for this Court, at this time, to enter into the merits of any of the legal issues projected, for the singular reason that the stated proposed amendments have not even yet been cleared or carried through by the Legislative Assembly to its nomothetic conclusion. Even so, what the Government, through Ext.P1, is attempting to do, is to stop all recovery action under the Revenue Recovery Act, until such time as they believe they can get the amendments carried; and obviously, this is speculative and conjectural to say the least. How a Government can do so, particularly when there is no inhibition for recovery under the present Statutory Scheme, is something that is ineffable and beyond comprehension. 6. That said, no doubt, there may be cases where the Government may find it justified for them to intervene where borrowers assert extreme difficulty to pay off the loan amounts in lump sum or within short periods; but this can be done only in a manner acceptable in law. It is common knowledge and therefore, safe to be taken judicial notice of, that this Court is also offering succor to such persons when approached under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and therefore, until such time as the amendments are carried through, that status may have to continue because, I cannot find any power for the Government to direct the Revenue Recovery Authorities, including the District Collectors, not to act as per law, which is admittedly in force. This will amount to the Government virtually staying a valid statute, for which, it surely obtains no power whatsoever, admittedly. This will amount to the Government virtually staying a valid statute, for which, it surely obtains no power whatsoever, admittedly. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and clarify that, notwithstanding Ext.P1, the petitioner would be at full liberty to seek that the revenue recovery action initiated by them be taken forward by the competent Authorities, which shall be done subject to law, following due procedure.