IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24201 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAJ.(RETD.)C.J.THOMAS, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. LATE YOHANNAN VARGHEESE, RESIDING AT 'ANSU VILLA' KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TH KERALAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR FINANCE TOWERS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 1 ST FLOOR, FINANCE TOWERS, KALOOR KOCHI-682017. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1,2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 24201 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is challenging the Revenue Recovery steps initiated against him by the third respondent for realisation of arrears due to the first respondent in the loan account availed by the Company to which petitioner is the Managing Director. The loan in question was sanctioned in the year 1992 and the amounts were disbursed in the year 1994. The dispute now raised by the petitioner is against correctness of the amount demanded as arrears. According to the petitioner, there was failure on the part of first respondent in giving due credit of the amounts received by way of margin money loan from the Industries Department of the State Government. Further contention is that, various incidental charges added on by the first respondent to the loan account are not sustainable. It is further submitted that he had approached the first respondent Corporation seeking “One Time Settlement”. The petitioner was compelled to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as evidenced by Ext.P3, but the said amount was not credited to the loan account. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had already raised a total amount of Rs.11,19,600/- as against WPC NO.24201/2009 2 the principal loan amount of Rs.7,50,000/- disbursed. Therefore the demand now raised is highly excessive and exorbitant, is the contention. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent Corporation, it is averred that on an earlier occasion when the Revenue Recovery proceedings was initiated during the year 2002, the Company had approached the State Consumer Reddressal Commission by filing O.P. No.18/2003. On dismissal of the said complaint, the Company had filed Writ Petition before this Court as WP(C) No.18789/2008 and further a Writ Appeal as W.A. No. 579/2009. The Company had also filed a civil suit for settlement of accounts as O.S.119/2002 before the Sub Court, Kochi which was also dismissed on 31.03.2005. It is further stated that, alleging non-crediting of the margin money loan the Company had also filed another Writ Petition as O.P. 19382/2000 before this Court, which was disposed of directing the General Manager, District Industries Centre, to consider and dispose of their representation. It is further revealed that during the year 2009, the petitioner had approached the first respondent Corporation with Annexure 1 and 2 requests seeking for 'One Time Settlement' offering a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is submitted by the Counsel for the first respondent that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as token of bonafides for considering OTS, and that the amount is kept in a separate suspense account without crediting the same into the loan WPC NO.24201/2009 3 account. It is stated that pursuant to receipt of Annexure 1 and 2 letters, the petitioner was invited for a discussion as evidenced by Ext.P4 letter. But the petitioner has not turned up and the Corporation had not finalized the OTS proposal. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the dispute regarding correctness of the amount outstanding payment cannot be adjudicated by this Court in this Writ Petition. This is especially because the loanee had already filed a civil suit for settlement of accounts, which was unsuccessful. However in the present state of affairs, if the petitioner is ready and willing to pursue his offer for One Time Settlement with some reasonable proposals, it is only just and proper to direct consideration of the same, in order to meet the ends of justice. As stated above, the petitioner was invited for a discussion in this regard on 12.08.2009 as per Ext.P4. The petitioner can still approach the authority to pursue with such discussions and to explore possibilities for a reasonable settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he is willing to approach the first respondent for One Time Settlement of arrears, provided the first respondent is directed also to consider and take a decision on the disputes regarding correctness of the balance outstanding. The learned standing counsel submitted that, a statement of account has already been produced as Annexure 3, and if WPC NO.24201/2009 4 the petitioner need any further clarifications or corrections, the first respondent is prepared to look into such complaints. 4. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit representation before the second respondent within two weeks from today requesting consideration for 'One Time Settlement' and also raising disputes regarding correctness of the balance outstanding. On receipt of any such representation, the second respondent shall consider the same and to take a final decision, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the second respondent for One Time Settlement, further coercive steps for recovery of the arrears in the above said loan account shall be kept in abeyance till a final decision is taken by the second respondent on the representation of the petitioner. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc