IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17746 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.K. BABU, AGED 50, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY, M/S.SREELAKSHMI ENTERPRISES, VAKAVAYALIL HOUSE, VANDANMEDU P.O., SOOLAPPARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY, SRI.T.A.JOY. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY (MINISTRY OF FINANCE), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 914. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 914. 3. THE MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA- 685 508. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA- 685 508. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE-685 508. R1, R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 17746 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/08/2008 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/06/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 12/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30/09/2009 IN WP(C) NO. 27485/2009. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/05/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 27485/2009. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 03/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. of 20 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17746 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts taken from the Kerala Financial Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings for recovery of the loan amount. The petitioner is now challenging the recovery proceedings on the ground that as evident from Ext. P10, a proposal for revival of the company is in the offing. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the K.F.C. He points out that with the same contention, the petitioner earlier approached this court by filing W.P(C) No. 27485/2009, in which this court passed Ext. P8 judgment permitting the petitioner to avail of the benefit of OTS scheme. Counsel submits that the benefits of OTS was extended to the petitioner and the petitioner has not availed of the same. He specifically submits that there is no chance of revival of the company as claimed by the petitioner. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. In Ext. P8 judgment in W.P(C) No. 27485/2009 filed by the petitioner, I held as follows: “The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amount due from him to the 2nd respondent-Kerala Financial Corporation. He does not dispute the liability to pay the amount or the quantum thereof. His only contention is that in so far as there is a scheme for 'One Time Settlement' of the loan amount, the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's claim for One Time Settlement. 2. The standing counsel for the 2nd respondent points out that as is evidenced by Ext.P1, earlier an OTS was offered to the petitioner, which the petitioner has not availed of. He further submits that if again the request of the petitioner has to -: 3 :- be considered that can only be in accordance with circular No. KFC/CIR2/RECY1/10-11 dated 21.04.2010. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for revival of the OTS of the loan account in accordance with the above circular and also in accordance with other provisions applicable under law, as expeditiously as possible. The learned standing counsel further points out that the facility as per the circular stands automatically extended till 30.06.2010. In the above circumstances the petitioner shall approach the 2nd respondent with a concrete proposal for OTS and comply with the directions thereof by the 2nd respondent in time.” The petitioner has admittedly not availed of the opportunity extended to him as per the said judgment. In the above circumstances, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to challenge the recovery proceedings on the ground that Ext. P 10 proposal is pending. Ext. P10 is dated 16.6.2011 and addressed to KFC themselves. They themselves submit before me that there is no chance of revival of the company. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/