IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33704 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PLAZA PULIMOOTTIL, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-LUKE STEPHEN, THODUPUZHA. 2. LUKE STEPHEN, S/O.JOSEPH STEPHEN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 3. P.S.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH STEPHEN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 4. JOICE P.STEPHEN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 5. SOPHIAMMA STEPHEN, W/O.JOSEPH STEPHEN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1,2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 33704 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4/P4(a) notices issued under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The case of the petitioner is that a loan was availed from the respondent KFC, way back in the year 1995. But because of some unforeseen circumstance, there occurred some lapses, under which circumstance, coercive steps were initiated by the respondents. Pursuant to the subsequent turn of events, the loan was rescheduled and the petitioner was trying to effect the payments accordingly. It is stated that the petitioner has approached the respondent for extending some concessions and it is pending consideration of the matter as above, that the respondents are proceeding with the coercive steps as borne by Ext.P4/P4(a) which hence are under challenge before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with specific reference to the prayer 'C' in the Writ Petition, that the petitioner will wipe off the entire liability within 'one year' and that maximum indulgence might be shown, so as to enable the petitioner in this regard. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that, when the matter came for consideration on WP(C) No.33704/2009 2 24.11.2009, coercive steps were intercepted on condition that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid within three weeks which was satisfied. But the interim order subsequently got expired as it was not sought to be extended and the petitioner has now filed I.A. 2548/2010 for revival and extension of the same. The learned standing counsel submits that the matter does not require any further consideration at all, in view of the actual fats and figures and also for the obvious reason that the sustainability of Ext.P4/P4(a) proceedings pursued by the respondents resorting to the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act has not been sought to be successfully challenged, referring any infringement of the legal provision. 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the loan facility extended in 1995 is lying uncleared for more than 1 ½ decades and that, the due amount as on 15.01.2010 is Rs.21,86,949/-. The learned standing counsel further submits that the petitioners are very much having the capacity to pay by virtue of the fact that they own 74 shop rooms and 11 office rooms in the building complex situated in the heart of the Thodupuzha town, which have been leased out to different tenants and huge income is being generated by way of rent. It is also stated that, the loan account, though expired in the year 2002, was rescheduled till 10.03.2008; which period is also over. Thereafter, as per Ext.P3 dated 06.04.2009, the petitioner was provided some instalments which was also not properly complied with. It is also made clear WP(C) No.33704/2009 3 vide Ext.P3 that the petitioner is not entitled to get any other relief; such as waiver of penal interest and that despite the extension of much facility to satisfy the due amount by way of instalments, the petitioner did not make use of the same and continued to be the defaulter and it was in the said circumstance that the respondents were constrained to proceed with further steps as per Ext.P4 (d) and hence that, it is not assailable under any circumstance. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find any legal infirmity with regard to the steps being pursued by the respondents. Absolutely no challenge is raised with regard to the issuance of the relevant proceedings, referring to violation of any provision of law. It is brought on record that the respondents have not proceeded with in a hasty or arbitrary manner. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find it necessary to interfere. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc