IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27748 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STAMINA STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD., CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.P.JAYARAJAN, S/O.RAMAN PANICKER, RAM NIVAS, EDAKKEPURAM SOUTH, P.O.CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.M.R.SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27748/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF the PRESS RELEASE CARRIED IN THE HINDU DAILY DATED 21/10/2006. P2 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 14/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/01/2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/11/2006 OF THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR. P5 : COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 12/02/2007. P6 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24/01/2008 P7 : COPY OF the LETTER DATED 28/01/2008 TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ISSUED by the 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. P9 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/02/2008 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES. P11 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27748 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an SSI Unit. They had availed of a margin money loan of Rs.1 lakh through the District Industries Centre. It would appear that in the matter of repayment they committed default. Finally, One Time Settlement scheme was announced by the Government and Ext.P1 is the newspaper report about the scheme. The petitioner applied for the benefit of the scheme and was allowed the same. 2. In the meantime, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.30,000/-, out of which, after deducting collection charges, Rs.28,572/- was remitted. From Exts.P8 & P9, it would appear that the Tahsildar made remittance towards principal. In terms of the OTS scheme, the petitioner was to pay 125% of the principal amount. According to the petitioner, since the amount payable is to be worked out on the balance principal amount that is due, while quantifying the same, amount recovered from him through revenue recovery should be WP(C) No.27748/2008 -2- given credit, and proportionate reduction should be given. 3. Of course, if as stated in Ext.P8, the amount has been remitted towards the principal, there is substance in what the petitioner submits. However, the learned Government Pleader, referring to Ext.P9, submits that in the agreement that was executed by the petitioner for availing of the margin money loan, the manner of appropriation of remittances is provided for, and that remittances should be appropriated in the order of penal interest, interest and then the principal. It is stated that when Rs.28,572/- was recovered from the petitioner, the same was appropriated in the manner as stated above, and that the same was totally appropriated towards interest due alone. 4. The petitioner has not produced a copy of the agreement. I have no material to conclude that the manner of appropriation and the actual appropriation of the amount recovered from the petitioner as submitted by the learned Government Pleader is incorrect. If that be so, the stand taken by the respondents is to be upheld. 5. It is seen that pursuant to the order dated 18/09/2008, WP(C) No.27748/2008 -3- the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.89,225/- and that what remains to be remitted is the balance to make it Rs.1,25,000/-. The petitioner may remit the balance amount, and thus avail of the benefit of the OTS scheme. 6. However, having regard to the fact that I am not in a position to grant the relief to the petitioner mainly on account of the dearth of material, I clarify that in case, the petitioner has a claim that the money is not actually due, he may pursue the matter before an appropriate Civil Court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg