IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2263 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.RAMANKUTTY, PALAKAVIL HOUSE ADAKAPUTHUR PO, CHERPULASSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA KHADI VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 2263 of 2010-G ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in the course of realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner under a loan transaction provided by the second respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner, as put forth by the learned counsel is that, even though the petitioner was regular in effecting the payment, because of some unforeseen circumstances and the loss sustained in the business, the petitioner could not honour the commitment, which made him a defaulter. In the said circumstances, the respondent bank proceeded with steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which in turn is sought to be intercepted. 3. The only grievance now projected in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' already notified by the second respondent and stated as valid till 30th of this month. The petitioner has already preferred application dated 28.1.2010, sent by registered post, to the second W.P(C) No. 2263 of 2010-G 2 respondent. 4. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent submits that a copy of the said application has been handed over to him and that the said application will be caused to considered by the second respondent in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed thereon; simultaneously adding that further recovery proceedings would be pursued against the petitioner only subject to the decision to be taken in the above application. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'six' weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the liability, in tune with the stipulation if the benefit of One Time Settlement is granted. Till appropriate orders are passed as above, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge