IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25513 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.K. KAMALAMMA W/O.LATE K,N, SUKUMARAKURUP, KARAMCHERY MADATHIL CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE SECRETARY KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TAHASILDAR, RANNY 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUKOLE PATHANAMTHITTA 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA BY SRI.K.P.HARISH, SC FOR KHADI BOARD, SMT.K.R.DEEPA, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25513 OF 2008 K ==================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's son had availed of a loan from the 2nd respondent and admittedly default was committed and that led to recovery proceedings evidenced by Ext.P1. It would appear that the petitioner being the mother of the defaulter moved the 3rd respondent by filing Ext.P2 and that resulted in Ext.P3 intimating that they will have to pay a total sum of Rs.13,52,838/- before 30/9/2008. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to Ext.P1, revenue recovery proceedings continued and the immovable properties belonging to the son, who is presently out of the country, is kept for sale tomorrow. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed. 2. As rightly pointed out by the standing counsel for the respondents, petitioner being the mother of the defaulter, does not, strictly speaking, have locus standi to challenge the proceedings. But, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is also claiming a right over the property, and in any case, she being the mother and as I am not adjudicating the challenge raised on the merits of it, I do not think I need labour much on the contention regarding the want of locus standi. WPC 25513/08 :2 : 3. Taking into account the submissions made by the petitioner and also by the standing counsel for the respondents, who points out that for the last two years there has been no trace of the petitioner's son, who had incurred liability, I dispose of this writ petition only subject to conditions and in the following manner. 4. It is directed that if an amount of Rs.5 lakhs out of the amount due from the petitioner's son is remitted on or before 3 P.M of 26/8/2008, sale in pursuance to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. It is directed that the balance amount due from the petitioner's son shall be remitted, either by the petitioner or her son, in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 25/9/2008 and the subsequent instalments on the 25th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that if default in paying anyone of the instalments is committed, the respondents will be free to continue the proceedings without further notice. 5. True the petitioner has raised contentions against Ext.P3. In the nature of the order I passed, I am not inclined to examine the same and I leave open those contentions. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp