IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24088 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.P.SUDARSANAN 68 YEARS, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN, PROPRIETOR, CHYTHANYA INDUSTRIES R/AT.KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUASE MUHAMMA PO., THANNEERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, THANNEERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 24088 OF 2008 P ==================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is basically against Exts. P3 and P4, by which revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the margin money loan availed of by him from the 2nd respondent. 2. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had availed of margin money loan of Rs. 1 lakh or the further fact that he had committed default in the matter of repayment. It is stated that when the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, by submitting Ext.P6, petitioner had applied for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme and that orders on Ext.P6 application have not been passed. It is complained that in the meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings are continued. 3. Petitioner has a case that in pursuance to Ext.P2 judgment of this court, the Sale Officer of the Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank was asked to determine his liability to the Bank and that if the liability is determined as directed, money is due to be refunded to him. WPC 24088/08 :2 : 4. It is further submitted that once his application for OTS is accepted, he should also be permitted to discharge the liability, by allowing him to pay the amount that is to be refunded to him in pursuance to the quantification ordered by this court as per Ext.P2. 5. I have considered the submissions made. It may be true that there is a possibility of refund once the quantification that is ordered by this court in Ext.P2 judgment is completed. But, however, since admittedly margin money loan has been availed of by the petitioner, and default committed, there is absolutely no justification to direct the 2nd respondent to await the quantification to be done and the refund to be made for realising the dues. Irrespective of this, since the OTS, the benefit of which has been applied for by the petitioner by Ext.P6, is in force till 30/9/2008, the petitioner is entitled to have his application considered for the benefit of the said scheme. 6. Accordingly, I direct that the 2nd respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner for One Time Settlement Scheme made by him as per Ext.P6. His claim shall be examined and if he is eligible, the liability shall be quantified in terms of the scheme, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is WPC 24088/08 :3 : directed that once the liability is intimated to him, the petitioner shall discharge the liability within the time specified by the 2nd respondent for that purpose. 7. It is also directed that until Ext.P6 is considered as above, and the time allowed for settlement of his liability expires, further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P3 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance. 8. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent immediately for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp