IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31219 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (TADCOS) LTD.NO.T 412, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAJEEVAM, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 15. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI. T.R. HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. ABUL HASSAN, S.C, R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 31219 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The society availed a loan from the respondent Corporation to the tune of Rs.17.40 lakhs for purchasing tourist buses. The loan was availed in the year 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that, a project submitted with respect to operation of the Tourist Buses was approved by the State Government, and an amount of Rs.28 lakhs was promised to be paid as subsidy to the project. It is contended that, eventhough sanction was accorded by the Government and necessary hypothecations were executed, the amount was not disbursed by the State Government. Therefore the petitioner was forced to borrow money from private financiers to run the activities. 2. Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed from the respondents, the buses owned by the petitioner were attached by invoking section 29 of the State WP(C).31219/2010 2 Financial Corporations Act. By sale of the attached vehicles certain amounts were already appropriated in the loan account. It is the contention of the petitioner that considerable amounts were already paid against the arrears in the loan account. According to the petitioner, attempt for one time settlement is also being pursued. Now the petitioner is approaching this court, aggrieved by the coercive steps of revenue recovery initiated, pursuant to Ext.P6 notice, for attachment and sale of the collateral security of immovable properties, belonging to the members of the society. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion by filing WP(C).No.31676/2009. In Ext.P3 judgment passed in that case it was observed that, the petitioner had offered a sum of Rs.17.5 lakhs towards one time settlement as per the proposal put forth on 8.9.2009. But the branch office of the respondent Corporation had informed that they are agreeable for settlement only for a sum of Rs.23.56 lakhs. It is mentioned in Ext.P3 judgment that the petitioner had failed to make further response pursuant to such offer. But the petitioner had made revised offer reducing the amount to Rs.12 WP(C).31219/2010 3 lakhs, which could not be accepted at any rate. Under the above premise this court has declined to interfere with the coercive steps initiated and the writ petition was dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents for appropriate reliefs. 4. In view of the concluded findings contained in Ext.P3, I do not find any material warranting interference in the present writ petition. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner had filed another Writ petition WP(C).No.35841/2007 seeking direction against the Government for disbursal of the amounts promised. It is further noticed that, eventhough an interim direction was issued against the Government in that writ petition, the same was reviewed on the basis of a petition filed by the State Government. 5. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that, merely because a writ petition filed against the Government is pending consideration before this court, the proceedings now initiated by respondents herein for recovery of the loan amount could not be restrained. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. WP(C).31219/2010 4 6. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to make approach before the respondents to pursue 'one time settlement' based on the offer made by the respondents, on payment of belated interest. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).31219/2010 5