IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1556 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. FLORENSE FERNANDEZ, SMITHA COTTAGE, PALLITHURA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STEPHEN FERNANDEZ, SMT.MARY STELLA, T.C.33/669, KOCHUVELI, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT MANAGER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL SC SRI. R.S. KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).1556/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation to the tune of Rs.7,18,200/- for purchasing a tourist vehicle. There was a default in the re-payment of the loan, though, according to the petitioner, some installments had been paid. Apparently when Ext.P1 notice was received by the petitioner, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 7440/2002 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 26.3.2002. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “If the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.75,000/- the respondents shall release the vehicle to the petitioner on further condition that the petitioner shall remit the balance amount towards the defaulted instalments until May, 2002 by 25.5.2002. He shall also remit the regular instalments from the month of July onwards. If any of these two conditions is not complied with by the petitioner, necessarily the vehicle can be repossessed.” W.P.(C).1556/2008 2 2. According to the petitioner, he offered to pay the amount as mentioned in Ext.P2. But by the time vehicle had already been sold to one Saraswathy Vidya Mandir. The petitioner submits, this sale was unauthorized and without due publication. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation refuted the same. 3. In the meanwhile claiming damages, petitioner approached Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.S.252/2002. Suit is stated to be pending. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, Ext.P5, demanding an amount of Rs.10,86,365/- with 19.75% interest. 4. I heard Sri.P.M.Mohanan for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri.R.S.Kalkura. Sri.Kalkura points out that there is a review petition pending in relation to Ext.P2 judgment as R.P.337/2002. W.P.(C).1556/2008 3 5. Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further enforcement of Ext.P5 till the disposal of R.P.337/2002 filed in Ext.P2. It is open to the parties to move for further orders as regards the enforcement of Ext.P5, in the course of disposal of the said R.P. Subject to this, Writ Petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs