IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6898 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. PURANGANAL THRESSIAMMA, W/O.MATHEW, AGED 90 YEARS, PURANGANAL HOUSE, VILAKANNUR, NADUVIL POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PURANGANAL LUKOSE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, PURANGANAL HOUSE, VILAKANNUR, NADUVIL POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI, SRI.V.A.SATHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, NADUVIL BRANCH, NADUVIL POST, KANNUR DISTRICT, 670 582. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, 670 141. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, RBI BUILDING, MUMBAI, 400 008. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6898 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge raised against recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of amounts due from the petitioners under a loan availed from the 1st respondent, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners have raised a single claim regarding entitlement for waiver of the debt under Ext.P3 scheme promulgated by the Central Government. However, in the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is categorically contended that the loans in question availed by the petitioners will not be entitled for full waiver under Ext.P3 scheme. It is contended that, out of the three loans availed by the petitioners, only the loan availed by the first petitioner is eligible for waiver to the extent of 25%. Eventhough the said fact was intimated through Ext.P5 and P6, and the first petitioner was requested to make remittance of 75% of the amounts, she had failed to comply with such request. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions refuting liability, is the submission on behalf of the 1st respondent Bank. W.P.(C). -2- 2. Considering the rival contentions as above, I do not find any reason to hold that the petitioners are not liable for payment of amounts sought to be recovered. However, it is noticed that the petitioners have approached the civil court by filing a suit as per Ext.P9 and the same is pending adjudication. It is further noticed that, eventhough this court had granted an interim stay on 11.4.2011 against coercive steps, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh, the petitioners have failed to comply with the said condition. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. Since there is no merit in the contention raised against the revenue recovery steps initiated, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4. However, I make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners pursuing the civil suit or in making any approach before the 1st respondent Bank for settlement of the arrears. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb