IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17366 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- CHANDRA ROSE, THIDUTHIANVILA, PARANIYAM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SMT. SINDHU MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, NEYYATTINKARA 1ST BRANCH, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.F.E LIMITED, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI. M.L. SAJEEVAN, SC FOR KSFE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 17366 OF 2008 - P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter to respondents 1 and 2. For realising the amount due from the petitioner recovery proceedings were initiated and at that stage the petitioner sought the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme by filing Ext. P3 application to the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext. P3, he was issued Ext. P4 informing that the respondents were collecting the required information from the branch for considering his request for the one time settlement of his liability. It is stated that while the application thus made by him is now pending consideration of the authorities the respondents have again initiated recovery proceedings by issuing Exts. P5 and P5(a). 2. Petitioner submits that the mortgaged property is scheduled to be sold on 19.6.2008. On receipt of Exts. P5 and P5(a) notices reiterating his plea for the benefit of one time settlement and also informing the authorities that the matter was pending W.P.(C) No. 17366 OF 2008 -2- consideration, petitioner has made Ext. P6 representation. Even to Ext. P6 it is stated that there is no response from the respondents. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts. P2, P4 and P5(a) notices and a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the properties of the sureties on the basis of Exts. P5 and P5(a). 3. I have heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Though, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner has made full payment of the principal amount due and what is now remained outstanding is only interest. The correctness of this assertion made by the counsel for the petitioner is open to doubt. This is for the reason that under Exts. P5 and P5(a), it is indicated that the amount due is principal as well as interest. In any case, irrespective of this ambiguity in the matter since the petitioner had made Ext. P6 application for one time settlement as he was informed that the matter was under consideration, in my view, until a final decision on Ext. P3 is taken, it may not be proper for the respondents to continue the recovery proceedings. 4. Therefore, I direct that the 1st respondent shall take a W.P.(C) No. 17366 OF 2008 -3- decision on Ext. P3 application made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, I direct that on the petitioner remitting 50% of the total amount indicated in Exts. P5 and P5(a) within 2 weeks from today further proceedings pursuant thereto will stand adjourned until a final decision on Ext. P3 is taken and communicated to the petitioner. 5. Writ petition is disposed of as above. petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-