IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 4577 of 2011(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- K.M.HARSHAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, VIJAYA VILAS, PANAGODE, VENGANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001. R1 BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 4577 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of amounts due under a loan account which was availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. Eventhough various contentions are raised, this court find no tenable ground to interfere with the recovery steps by holding that the petitioner is not liable for payment of the amounts under demand. 2. However, on the basis of persuasive submissions made undertaking payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, an interim stay was granted by this court, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting Rs.30,000/- within three weeks from 11.2.2011. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application for extension of the time stipulated for payment, on the premise that he had already remitted a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Time for payment of the balance amount was extended by two weeks from 9.3.2011. But the petitioner failed to comply with the condition and inspite of various adjournments the amount WP(C) .4577/2011 2 stipulated has not been paid in full. 3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner had failed to comply with the condition. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition any further in order to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .4577/2011 3