IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32302 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- A.SHAMSUDHEEN,KANJIRAMVILAL VEETTIL, KAREEPRA VILLAGE,KUZHIMATHIKKAD,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,SIDCO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SC, SIDCO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32302 OF 2010 (K) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner availed of margin money loan from the 2nd respondent. Default was committed. It was while so, Government issued Ext.P5 extending concession to defaulters like the petitioner, who had availed of financial assistance from the Directorate of Industries and Commerce. However, the benefit of Ext.P5 was not available to persons like the petitioner, who had availed of loans from the SIDCO. 2. Petitioner made representations claiming the benefit of Ext.P5. Thereafter, he approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.28690/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing consideration of his representation. 3. Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P10 order was issued. In Ext.P10, inspite of the inapplicability of Ext.P5, 50% of the interest and the entire penal interest was waived. Subsequently, he was issued Ext.P11 demanding payment of the balance amount and it would appear that principal amount has already been paid and Rs.30,000 towards litigation WPC No. 32302/10 :2 : expenses also has been paid. 4. In any case, now what remains to be paid is Rs.62,972/-. Further representations were made by the petitioner and his case was recommended for extension of the benefit of One Time Settlement, if any, in vogue. However, finally by Ext.P17, petitioner has been informed that there is no OTS in vogue also. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed claiming that defaulters like the petitioner should be given the benefit of Ext.P5, which provides for the waiver of the total liability. 5. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that this is a Government Order extending concessions to defaulters. Ext.P5 on the face of it, does not apply to defaulters who have availed of loans from the 2nd respondent. If that be so, petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Ext.P5. I am also not in a position to accept the case of the petitioner that having regard to the fact that the loans extended by the Directorate of Industries and also by the 2nd respondent are both for the purpose of setting up industries, discrimination in the WPC No. 32302/10 :3 : matter of waiver of liability cannot be practiced among the defaulters. Even if purpose of loan is the same, unless there is an express scheme for waiver of the liability, none can compel anyone to waive the liability. Further schemes are in realm of policy which is framed taking note of several factors, which will vary from institution to institution. Therefore, prevalence of scheme in one organization does not lead to an inference that absence of such scheme elsewhere spells out discrimination. That apart, reading of Ext.P7 itself show that SIDCO was disbursing loans after borrowing funds from the Government for which SIDCO is liable to pay interest to the Government and other sources. Therefore, in the absence of any enabling provision entitling to claim waiver to defaulters like the petitioner, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction as sought for. 7. Be that as it may, now that the liability due from the petitioner has been indicated in Ext.P17 to be Rs.62,972 (Rupees Sixty two thousand nine hundred and seventy two only), I feel that, in all fairness, the petitioner should be permitted to pay the aforesaid amount in instalments. 8. Therefore, I direct that the 2nd respondent will permit WPC No. 32302/10 :4 : the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount in six equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be paid on or before 15/11/2010 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid without default on or before 15th of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, recovery proceedings shall not be initiated. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp