IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30590 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SANKARAN BHATTATHIRIPAD, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.T.S.BHATTATHIRIPPAD, THEKKEDATH MANA, KADOMKODE, THRISSUR NOW RESIDING AT 'ASWATHY' ANUGRAHA NAGAR, PARLI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE HAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARLI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD – 678 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.30590 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice of revenue recovery issued by the 1st respondent. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to margin money loan sanctioned by the 3rd respondent, with respect to an industry run by the petitioner. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 objection before the 4th respondent. Contention of the petitioner is that the recovery steps is unsustainable since the debt remains time barred and could not be recovered through any legal proceedings. It is further contended that the industry was started on availing financial assistance from the State Bank of India and that the margin money loan was credited only to the Bank account. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had already settled the loan account with the State Bank of India and hence he is not liable for payment of the amount now demanded through the revenue recovery steps. W.P(C) No.30590 of 2010-W 2 2. Having considered the contentions, I am of the view that there is no merit in the challenges raised. The amount of margin money loan was paid from the Industries Department of the State Government and the amount now sought to be recovered is amounts due to the Government which can be recovered as if it is a public revenue due on land. The margin money loan was sanctioned in the year 1983, which is within the period of 30 years and as such the limitation will not apply in this case. Further, merely because the amount was credited in the loan account of the petitioner, he will not be exonerated from the liability, on the basis of any settlement of the loan account with the Bank. 3. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petition came up for consideration this Court had issued an interim order staying further recovery steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.35,000/- within one month from 6.10.2010. Eventhough, the petitioner had filed application seeking extension of W.P(C) No.30590 of 2010-W 3 time and inspite of the time granted till 15.12.2010, the petitioner had not complied with the condition stipulated. 4. Under such circumstances, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority of the State Government in order to seek waiver of interest/penal interest to the possible extent and/or seeking permission for payment of the amount due in a phased manner. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority seeking reliefs as stated above. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab