IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33361 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THOMAS SEBASTIAN, SURYANELLY PALANTATIONS, (SUN VALLEY RESORTS) VYTHIRI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH MANAGER,PINANGOD ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD 673 121. 2. ZONAL MANAGER (NZ) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION KOZHIKODE. 3. DEPUTY THASILDAR (RR) KFC, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA FINANCIAL COR FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33361 OF 2008 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan and he could not repay and he became defaulter. Thereafter, petitioner was given the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. It is the further case of the petitioner that he remitted Rs.5 Lakhs and he entrusted four cheques. But due to unexpected financial catastrophe faced by the petitioner, he could not raise the requisite funds to honour the cheque for Rs.10 lakhs and it was dishonoured. But by Ext.P1 letter, he was informed that the settlement entered under the OTS is cancelled and revenue recovery proceedings are taken. Then, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation seeking to allow him to remit the entire amount in instalments and also offering his willingness to pay the interest for the outstanding amount since 20.3.2008 until the date of final settlement. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to consider Ext.P2 representation and direct the respondents to W.P.(C).NO.33361/08 V 2 restore the OTS benefit given to the petitioner. 2. Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent KFC, submitted that a decision has already been taken on Ext.P2 representation and it has been rejected. In the light of this development, I do not think it necessary to entertain the matter any further. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the said decision taken on Ext.P2, if so advised. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge