IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No.1338 of 2009 (H) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 52/2008 IN EA.62/2008 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- Y.THOMAS,PROPRIETOR,M/S.THOMSON CASHEW COMPANY,CHENGAMANADU,KOLLAM, RESIDING AT THUNDUVILA VEEDU, CHENGAMANADU.P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. M/S.SASTHA ENTERPRISES,BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, N.NANDAKUMAR. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, 5TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK,KENDRIYA BHAVAN,KAKKANADU, COCHIN-682037. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.1338 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.52/08 on the file of the District Court, Kollam, the Execution Petition being one for execution of an award in O.P(Arb).271/06. It is submitted that the E.P. amount comes to around Rs.14 lakhs and odd. The court below has by the impugned order (Ext.P1) restrained second respondent Joint Director General of Foreign Trade from releasing the licence due under the Videsh Krishi Upay Yogana (VKUY) for the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08 to the petitioner until further orders. The grievance of the petitioner/judgment debtor is that the licence that is restrained to be issued to the petitioner by the second respondent is a licence issued by way of incentive to an exporter; that the incentive amount so due W. P. C. No.1338 of 2009 -2- under the licenses to the petitioner will come to about Rupees One crore whereas the debt due from him is only around Rs.14 lakhs that the licence is not encashable by a stranger and that in view of the injunction order the second respondent is not taking any action to process the applications filed by the petitioner for the licence under the said VKUY Scheme for the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and that heavy loss is being incurred by the petitioner on that account for want of liquid cash with him as all amounts due to him are held up one way or the other. The prayer of the petitioner is only for the injunction order being modified so as to have the application for disbursement of the licence being processed by the second respondent. 2. In the result, in modification of Ext.P1 order assailed, I direct the second respondent to process the application filed by W. P. C. No.1338 of 2009 -3- the petitioner for disbursement of licence for the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and produce the licenses before the execution court for being dealt with appropriately and to get discharge from the petitioner in their records from the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent and also before the court below with notice to counsel for the decree holder as this Writ Petition is disposed of without notice to the second respondent/decree holder. 3. Issue copy of this judgment to the counsel for the petitioner urgently. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-