IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 8678 of 2008(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SANAL KUMAR K.N. AGED 38 YEARS KAVUMMPRAYIL HOUSE, JOSEGIRI P.O., IDUKKI [DISTRICT]. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY V. PAUL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 033. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT OFFICE PULICKAL BUILDING, KATTAPPANA IDUKKI [DISTRICT]. BY ADV. SRI. V.B. UNNIRAJ, SC FOR KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 8678 OF 2008 G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to waive the alleged illegal interest and penal interest charged on the loan amount of the petitioner for the period when recovery was stayed and the matter was pending before this Court. 2. Petitioner submits that he had availed of a loan of Rs.2,68,500/- under the Self Employment Scheme of the Corporation for purchasing a jeep. It is stated that when default was committed the jeep was seized and was auctioned by the K.F.C. Petitioner submits that including the sale proceeds, the total remittance was Rs.4,11,220/- and that when recovery proceedings were continued, he had filed O.P. No. 23236/02 before this Court. In that O.P. this Court passed Ext. P6 order granting stay on condition of payment of Rs.50,000/- which was complied with. The original petition was disposed of by Ext. P7 judgment dated W.P.(C) No.8678 OF 2008 -2- 17.10.2006 directing consideration of the representation made by the petitioner. It is stated that the decision on the representation was not satisfactory and when recovery proceedings are continued this writ petition has been filed. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while quantifying his liability the Corporation is demanding interest on the dues for the period covered by Ext. P6 order of stay in O.P. No. 23236 of 2002. I do not find any illegality in this demand. It is settled law that when an institution is prevented by an order passed by this Court, the petitioner is liable for interest that accrues on the amount due. This contention could have been appreciated had the petitioner succeeded in getting the demand quashed and if that had led to the issue of a fresh demand being made against him. In this case that also has not happened. If that be so, the Corporation, in my view, is entitled to demand interest on the amount due. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-