IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 35654 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS.V.K.RADHAMANI AMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.K.A.NARAYANA PILLAI, KALIKURUMBATHARAYIL HOUSE, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, `BHADRADHA', MUSEUM ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MAIN BRANCH OFFICE, PADMA JUNCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - 682 018. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KSFE LTD., ERNAKULAM - 682 011. 4. SINDHU UNNIKRISHNAN, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, NOW RESIDING AT DOOR NO.32/1757B, NETAJI ROAD, COCHIN-24. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD FOR R1-3 SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35654 of 2010-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 notice is under challenge in this writ petition. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears due from the 4th respondent, who had subscribed various chitties conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 and availed various loans from the said respondents. The petitioner is a guarantor with respect to the said transactions. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P(C) No.8253 of 2010. The said writ petition was filed at a stage when property belonging to the petitioner was put for sale. It is noticed that, eventhough this Court imposed conditions for payment of various amounts, the petitioner had failed to satisfy those conditions. However, the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court in permitting to challenge correctness and sustainability of the proceedings and also the legality of the W.P(C) No.35654 of 2010-I 2 sale, by resorting to appropriate remedies. The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner in that regard. Contention of the petitioner is that, the respondents had pursued the revenue recovery steps without considering the objections raised regarding the correctness of the demand, on various premises. 2. In view of the above said circumstances and especially in view of the filing of the earlier writ petition, and also in view of Ext.P2 judgment, this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the merits of the contentions. I find that no legally tenable ground was raised in order to deny the liability. The fact that the petitioner stood as a guarantor with respect to transaction of the 4th respondent is admitted and as such she could not claim any exoneration from the liability for payment of the amounts under demand. However, as a gesture of indulgence the sale proclaimed under Ext.P4 notice was directed to be deferred, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a W.P(C) No.35654 of 2010-I 3 sum of Rs.6 lakhs. The petitioner had remitted the said amount. The interim order was subsequently extended subject to condition of remitting a further sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 24.1.2011. It is stated that the said stipulation was also complied with. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner had remitted a total sum of Rs.9 lakhs after filing this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited request to permit payment of the entire balance outstanding within a reasonable time and on that premise indulgence was sought for to restrain steps for sale of the property attached. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the liability in instalments within a reasonable time. The petitioner also seeks direction from respondents 1 to 3 to adjust the amounts allegedly remitted by the 4th respondent, in another chitty transaction which remains unprized. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition W.P(C) No.35654 of 2010-I 4 is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. It is directed that the respondent may take steps to adjust the amounts if any due to the 4th respondent with respect to the remittance made in unprized chitty against the arrears, if permissible. 6. It is further made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps for sale of the property and other recovery steps permissible under law. 7. The petitioner is permitted to remit the amount as directed above directly to respondents 1 and 2. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be insisted for payment of collection charges under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, because realistion of collection W.P(C) No.35654 of 2010-I 5 charges with respect to recovery effected by the institution like that of respondents 1 and 2, has already been held as illegal by a decision of this Court. However, it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the said issue is now pending disposal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and an interim stay was granted against operation of the judgment of this Court. Under such circumstances, it is made clear that the ultimate liability for payment of collection charges will be decided subject to outcome of the matter now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab