IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4808 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.J. JOHN, S/O. YOHANNAN, A.J. JOHN & COMPANY, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT ATTUVARATHU PUTHEN BUNGALOW, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY TALUK, OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 4808 of 2009-V ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. It is a communication from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kottayam requesting the petitioner to pay the arrears in a sum of Rs.1,45,078.13. Ext.P1 is dated 17.8.2004. According to the petitioner, there was a One-Time-Settlement Scheme for margin money by Ext.P2. But, he could not fructify it and he is facing revenue recovery proceedings. Thereafter, Government issued OTS scheme and the first respondent issued Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, he has remitted the amount in terms of Exts.P3 and P4 as full and final settlement. It is stated that when the petitioner approached the first respondent for issuing No Objection Certificate to produce before the K.F.C. for release of his title deeds, the first respondent directed him to remit WPC No.4808/2009 -2- further amount. It is the case of the petitioner that due to laches on the part of the respondent in properly giving credit of the remittances made before the 3rd respondent in terms of Ext.P5, petitioner may not be penalised. It is stated that the Ist respondent is estopped from demanding further amount. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instruction, would submit that, further amounts are due from the petitioner. I feel that this is a matter where the Ist respondent can be directed to consider the representation that may be filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner files representation before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said respondent will consider the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision WPC No.4808/2009 -3- thereon, in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioner. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS