IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 9405 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. K.J. ANTONY, S/O.JACOB, AGED 53 YEARS JYOTHIS INDUSTRIES, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DIST. 2. A.M. VARGHESE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS ETTIYIL HOUSE, NARIYAMPARA P.O., KATTAPPANA IDUKKI DIST. 3. SAJI JOSE, S/O.JOSE, AGED 39 YEARS PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, JYOTHIS METALS MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. ADMINISTRATOR IDUKKI DIST. MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (SERVICE) CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD. NO.-S IND(1) 10 THODUPUZHA, NOW WORKING AT CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI DIST 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR IDUKKI DIST. MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (SERVICE) CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD. NO.-S IND(1) 10 THODUPUZHA, NOW WORKING AT CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI DIST 3. INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, KERALA TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9405 OF 2008 (T) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are allotees of industrial estates on hire purchase basis. Ext.P1 is a specimen copy of the agreement. Default was committed, notices were issued and petitioners applied for the benefit of one time settlement scheme. When that was not given, they approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.4050/07. 2. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing that the petitioners will be granted six equal monthly instalments to clear the balance arrears with 9% simple interest from the date of default till date of payment. According to the petitioners, payments have been made in full discharge of the dues and they are relying on Exts.P6 to P8 series of receipts. Later, they were issued Exts.P9, P10 and P11 statements indicating that further amounts are due. At that stage, contending that the method adopted for calculation of their liability is erroneous, they filed Exts.P12 to P14 representations. The representations were not considered and Ext.P15 communication is issued. In Ext.P15, the stand taken by the respondents is that WPC 9405/08 :2 : in view of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment, the liability was quantified and the principal amount paid was deducted and the balance dues is worked out for settlement of the liability. Petitioners contend that it is not only the principal amount paid that was liable to be deducted, but even the payment made towards interest is also liable to the deducted. They rely on the directions in Ext.P5 judgment in support of this plea. On the aforesaid contention, this writ petition is filed seeking to challenge Ext.P15, and consequential reliefs are also sought for. 3. In my view, essentially what arises for consideration is an interpretation of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment. If according to the petitioners, what is stated in Ext.P15 does not reflect the correct position, the remedy available to the petitioners is to seek appropriate clarification of Ext.P5 judgment and not a fresh writ petition. Therefore, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioners, writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp