IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30492 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- C.V.ELIAS, AGED 52, S/O.VARGHESE, CHANDANASSERIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, (FINANCE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA, UDUMPANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R2 & 3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30492 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent Corporation. Early in 2009, recovery proceedings were initiated for realising abut Rs.13 lakhs from him. At that stage, petitioner applied for the benefit of a one time settlement scheme which was then in vogue. By Ext.P1 order, the benefit was extended on the petitioner subject to his paying Rs.6.25 lakhs before 28/2/2009. However, petitioner paid only Rs.2.5 lakhs, as a result of which, he lost the benefit of Ext.P1. 2. Subsequently also, petitioner made endeavours to get the benefit of later schemes, but nothing materialised. The present writ petition is filed praying that he should be directed to be given the benefit of a scheme, which was subsequently announced by the Corporation. 3. However, from the submissions made by the standing counsel, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the scheme, which he is now claiming. 4. However, it is a fact that the petitioner was given the benefit of one time settlement scheme by Ext.P1 and a portion of WPC No. 30492/10 :2 : the amount also has been paid by the petitioner. Although the petitioner could not make the payment of the balance amount due despite extension of time that was granted, in these circumstances, I feel it is only appropriate that the respondent should consider whether petitioner could be given an opportunity to pay the balance amount due under Ext.P1 along with the default interest or other charges, if any payable. 5. In that view of the matter, I direct that on the petitioner making the payment of Rs.3.75 lakhs, the balance amount due under Ext.P1, before 21/10/2010, the day on which the mortgaged properties are scheduled to be sold, along with a detailed representation to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent will consider the case of the petitioner for revival of the benefit extended to the petitioner by Ext.P1. Needless to say that if the request is ultimately accepted, the title deeds deposited by the petitioner will also be returned to the petitioner subject to compliance with the other requirements. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp