IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7962 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SIVADASAN, MANAGING PARTNER,SREE MURUGA CASHEW FACTORY, MELKULANGARA, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL.R4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION KOLLAM (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 16.3.09 IN IA.3821/09) BY SRI.A.ABDUL HUSSAIN, R1, 2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN , R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 7962 OF 2009 M ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 representation considering the same stand taken in Ext.P1 after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and before conducting the auction of the property in pursuance of Ext.P3. Subsequently, the petitioner has amended the writ petition and the challenge is against Ext.P3 auction notice on the ground that it is not sustainable in law and the 1st respondent is liable to quantity the amount by disposing Ext.P2 representation before auction. 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The petitioner availed a loan and it was not repaid. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent has agreed to treat the loan as closed under OTS on remittance of Rs.62.68 lakhs before 31.2.2008 against the balance outstanding of Rs.94.16 lakhs and the time was extended till 30.4.2008. It is stated that the petitioner was unable to remit the amount. This court granted some time to effect the payment. There is reference to WA.2185/08 which was dismissed. It is stated that the proposed purchaser has refused to WPC.7962/09 : 2 : purchase the property by paying the balance amount. There is reference to global financial melt down. Petitioner has produced Ext.P1 letter. It is stated in Ext.P1 that in respect of another person, considerable benefit was given in the matter of reduction of interest. The petitioner filed Ext.P2. While so, Ext.P3 sale notice was issued. 3. Obviously, the petitioner was given once the benefit of OTS. However, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 representation. In the circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of as follows. The sale can go on. If the petitioner remits Rs.5 lakhs before the time of sale and Rs.10 lakhs on or before 31.3.2009, the sale will not be confirmed for a period of one month. In the meantime, the 1st respondent will consider and take a decision on Ext.P2, provided the petitioner remits the amount of Rs.15 lakhs as aforesaid, within a week of the entire amount being deposited. It is open to the petitioner to avail the remedies under the Revenue Recovery Act. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks