IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11934 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAMLATH BEEVI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.THANGAL KUNJU, HAZEENA MANZIL, PADINHATEKARA P.O., THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN, SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SMT.R.MALINI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690 518. 2. DEPUTY TAHSLDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. R1 BY SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.11934 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed an industrial loan to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent bank. Since the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, the Bank proceeded with further steps invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent and that the prayer is confined to cause the same to be considered and finalised within a specified time. 3. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instruction that, as given in Ext.P3 dated 2.3.2009, the total outstanding liability comes nearly Rs.1.75 lakhs, with further interest and cost. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the allegation as to the non-consideration of Ext.P5, is not correct or sustainable, in view of the fact that the revenue recovery notice was issued on 22.3.2010, whereas Ext.P5 representation was preferred by the W.P(C) No.11934 of 2010-N 2 petitioner only thereafter on 23.3.2010. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel for the Bank submits that unless and until the petitioner proves his bonafides by satisfying a portion of the liability, Ext.P5 is not liable to be entertained. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court directs the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within one month, on which event, the first respondent shall consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon, giving possible concession/allowances if any and sufficient time, so as to enable the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. Subject to the satisfaction of the requirement as above and finalisation of Ext.P5, all further coercive steps stated as being pursued, pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance for the time being and the same could be proceeded with, if the petitioner fails to discharge the liability depending on the outcome of the orders to be passed on Ext.P5. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge