IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32330 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.O.P.KUNHALAN KUTTY AISHA MANZIL, P.O.MELANGADI, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. 2. THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION GRAMODAYA, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION KOTTAPADI, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.P.HARISH, SC FOR KHADIBOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 32330 OF 2007 w ===================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a defaulter to the 2nd respondent. He had filed a writ petition in this court as WP(C) No.13287/06 and that case was disposed of by Ext.P4. It was directed that petitioner will be free to make an application for OTS and that coercive action will be deferred on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.4 lakhs within six weeks. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an application for One Time Settlement Scheme, it is not in controversy that he did not comply with the condition requiring deposit of a portion of the amount. It is while so that this writ petition has been filed praying for directing the respondents to take action on Ext.P6 application for OTS and its reminder Ext.P7. 2. From the statement filed by the respondents, it is clear WPC 32330/07 :2 : that they have considered the request of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the Khadi and Village Industries Commission. It is also stated that the Khadi and Village Industries Commission have declined the request of the petitioner for OTS and that the said decision of the Commission has been communicated to the petitioner under cover of Ext.R3(c). Thus on facts, what emerges is that Ext.P6 application made by the petitioner stands rejected and that the said decision of the Commission has been informed to the petitioner under Ext.R3(c). If that be so, the prayer sought for in this writ petition does not survive for consideration. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp