IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5975 of 2011(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.O.MATHEW S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, DOING AGRICULTRE, MOOLANCHERY HOUSE, CHEERAL POST, SULATHAN BATHERY TALUK, PIN-673 595. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., PIN-673 592, WYNAD DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE-673 593, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. 3. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, AMBALAVAYAL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WYNAD DISTRICT-673 593. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WYNAD DISTRICT, KALPETTA, WYNAD-673 121. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.S.RAMU R2 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5975 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 and P7 notices. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears due under different loan accounts, which were availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioner is raising serious dispute regarding correctness of the amounts under demand. He further submits that the coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated without considering request made by the petitioner under Ext.P8, either to reschedule the loan accounts or to consider 'One Time Settlement'. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the basis of instructions, submitted that pursuant to Ext.P8 the petitioner was invited for a discussion in the Adalath held on 26.2.2011. Since the petitioner could not make any reasonable offer for considering 'One Time Settlement', no agreement could be arrived. It is further stated that the claim raised by the petitioner to consider waiver under the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme, promulgated by the Central Government, could not be considered since the W.P.(C).5975/11 -2- petitioner is not eligible within the purview of the said scheme. 3. Eventhough various contentions are raised, I am of the considered opinion that those contentions could not be adjudicated in a proceedings under Article 226. No legally tenable grounds has been raised to review the liability with respect to loans availed by the petitioner. Therefore I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves no merit. 4. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the balance amount outstanding, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, provided the respondent Bank may consider waiver of interest and penal interest to the possible extent. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P6 and P7 notices, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts due thereon along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. W.P.(C).5975/11 -3- 6. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Bank seeking waiver of interest/ penal interest and expenses, to the possible extent. It is made clear that the Bank will be at liberty to consider the same and to take appropriate decision, despite the directions issued in this judgment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb