IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31594 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.D.SUNIL DAS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.A.P.DAS, R/AT VISWAKARMA SADANAM, KANNANKARA PO, THANNEERMUKKOM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 527. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KSFE, KUMARANASAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, CHERTHALA BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHERTHALA BRANCH-688 524. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 4. DR.SHERLI MON, PUSHPAMANGALATH, MUTTATHIPARAMBU, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 524. ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD. FOR R2 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31594 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P8 notice issued for realising amounts due from the 4th respondent to respondents 2 and 3. The 4th respondent had availed a loan from respondents 2 and 3, to which the petitioner stood as guarantor. Consequent to default committed by the 4th respondent, recovery steps have now been initiated against the petitioner. 2. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion and in Ext.P6 judgment this Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the second respondent and the second respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the same at the earliest and also to allow the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to pay off the balance in itstalments. Contention of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P7 2 W.P.(C).No.31594 of 2010 representation was filed consequent to Ext.P6 judgment, respondent nos.1 to 3 have failed to consider the said representation and the coercive steps of recovery was pursued. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 it is contended that the direction contained in the judgment has already been complied with and the petitioner has not cared to make payment of the dues in accordance with the directions issued therein. It is further stated that the fourth respondent, who is the principal debtor, is absconding and respondents 2 and 3 were not able to realise any amount from him. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that whatever concession possible regarding waiver of amount has already been given and the 'one time settlement scheme' as alleged by the petitioner is not in force at present. 4. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that, there is no ground warranting interference of this Court to hold that the petitioner is not liable for payment of 3 W.P.(C).No.31594 of 2010 the amount demanded. It is noticed that by virtue of an interim order issued by this Court the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Under such circumstances, interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is directed to make payment of the balance amount in a phased manner within a reasonable time, without prejudice to his rights to pursue reliefs sought for under Ext.P7. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery on the basis of Ext.P8 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding month. 6. In order to facilitate the petitioner to make the payment of the amounts, the respondents 2 and 3 shall furnish a statement of the balance amount outstanding, after considering request if any made by the petitioner within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy 4 W.P.(C).No.31594 of 2010 of this judgment. 7. Needless to say that possible waiver of amounts under the OTS scheme, if available, shall be given to the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/