IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29126 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U.THAJUDEEN, S/O.USEF RAUTHER, ODUKURUNJIKALAM, ENTHALPALAM, CHITTOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT KHADI VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI. K.P. HARISH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29126 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner had availed a loan from the 1st respondent for staring an industry engaged in brick manufacturing. According to the petitioner the unit could not be functioned due to obstructions created by neighbouring people and consequently repayment of the loan amount fell into heavy arrears. The 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P2 demand requesting the petitioner to clear the arrears before 30.06.2009, otherwise stringent action including attachment and sale of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner was threatened. According to the petitioner he had approached the 1st respondent to settle the arrears through “One Time Settlement Scheme”, and the same has not been considered. Therefore the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to permit to settle the amount under the “One Time Settlement Scheme”. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the W.P.(C)No. 29126 of 2009 2 respondents submitted that there is no 'OTS' prevailing at present. On the other hand, it is submitted that it is for the petitioner to approach appropriate authorities under the respondents to seek compromise settlement on waiver of interest or penal interest to the possible extent. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has to work out his remedies before the appropriate authority under the 1st respondent. I find no reason to believe that if any such approach is made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent will not consider the same. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the 1st respondent seeking compromise settlement. If any such representation is received it is for the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the same without any further delay. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/