IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1110 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SATHIAMMA, RESIDING AT VINU BHAVAN, AMBOLIL VADAKKETHIL, KANDALLOOR VADAKKUM MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR, SMT. SABINA JAYAN, SMT. MINI.V.A. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KHADI BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE RECOVERY, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,KARITHIKAPPALY,HARIPAD - 690 514. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. R1 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. K.P.HARISH, SC R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1110 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner’s husband, late Sri. Govinda Pillai, along with others have constituted a co-operative society which availed a loan from the 1st respondent. Subsequently the society became defunct and the loan amount was not repaid. When recovery steps were initiated, the petitioner resisted the same through filing of a civil suit before Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, as O.S.130/1992. The suit was allowed holding that there is procedural irregularity with respect to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner’s husband. But, thereafter fresh proceedings was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1995. Challenging the steps of recovery initiated the petitioner had approached this court in O.P. 17526/95. The recovery proceedings was stayed by virtue of an order passed in CMP.31826/95, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The writ petition was disposed of through Ext.P3 judgment. This court observed that the foremost contention raised by the petitioner that the recovery is barred by limitation, was not controverted in the counter affidavit filed. Hence the original petition was allowed. It is observed that the “consequences will follow”. W.P.(C).1110/11 -2- 2. According to the petitioner, she was entitled for getting back the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by virtue of the interim order, on the basis of Ext.P3 judgment, through which the writ petition was allowed in her favour. It is stated that, the petitioner had approached respondents 2 and 3 seeking refund of the amount. A complaint was submitted in this regard Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. But Ext.P4 reply was given from the Government, enclosing copy of a report submitted by the District Collector to the Government. It is noticed that, in Ext.P4, the District Collector had reported that the 4th respondent had rejected the claim stating that neither the petitioner nor his counsel made a request for refund of the amount, before the court, and that the claim for refund made after the lapse of 15 years is barred by limitation. It is stated that the request for refund made by the petitioner could not be considered unless specific direction is issued in this regard by the court. 3. Considering the contentions raised as above, I notice that Ext.P3 judgment was passed as early as on 12.8.2002. Eventhough the writ petition was allowed, no specific direction was issued by this court with respect to appropriation of the amount deposited by virtue of the interim order. I am not agreeable with the contention of the petitioner that, since this court observed that “consequences will follow” the petitioner is W.P.(C).1110/11 -3- entitled for an automatic refund of the amount. This is especially because of the position that the question of limit which was found in favour of the petitioner will bar only the remedy. On the other hand it will not nullify the debt or even the right of the creditor for realisation. Therefore the respondents are at liberty to appropriate any amount which had come into their possession, against the arrears outstanding. Further, unless there is a specific direction issued by this court through Ext.P3 judgment or any subsequent clarification or modification, the petitioner could not claim refund of the amount as a matter of right. I notice that inspite of the judgment pronounced in the year 2002 the petitioner had made a complaint to the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Government, only in the year 2010. It is also noticed that the amount in question was deposited as early as in the year 1995. 4. Therefore, the petitioner is in no way justified in seeking refund of the amounts in question. Accordingly the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb