IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 1378 of 2008(F) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9507/2004 Dated 20/11/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.G.SUNILKUMAR S/O.LATE NJAANASEELAN, THUMPUNKAL HOUSE VAKATHANAM VILLAGE AND POST, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL MANAGER,KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE LIMITED, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE LIMITED, AT THRISSUR REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY SECTION, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THOTTAKKADU VILLAGE THOTTAKKADU POST,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THOTTAKKADU VILLAGE, PANACHIKKAD POST,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAKATHANAM VILLAGE, VAKATHANAM POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. T.G.SURESH ,S/O.LATE NJANASEELAN THUMPUNKAL HOUSE,VAKATHANAM VILLAGE AND POST KOTTAYAM TALUK. 8. R.SREEDEVI, KOLAKKULAM HOUSE KADUVAKKULAM COLONY, KOLLADU POST KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. BIJU SUKUMARAN, KOLAKKULAM HOUSE KADUVAKKULAM COLONY, KOLLADU POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. M.R.KRISHNANKUTTY, NADUKKAYIL HOUSE PONGANTHANAM POST, CHANGANANCHERRY TALUK. 11. T.J.SANTHAMMA, W/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NADUKKAYIL HOUSE, PONGANTHANAM POST CHAGANACHERRY TALUK. R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS R3 TO R6 BY G.P. SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. .................................................................... R.P. No.1378 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.9507 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009. ORDER Review Petition is filed on the ground that attached equipments are retained by the Tahsildar without sale. However, Government Pleader and counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that petitioner approached the Consumer Court and probably pendency of litigation led to delay in sale of attached articles. In any case I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment in review as there is no mistake in the judgment. However, considering the financial plight expressed by the petitioner, I feel petitioner should be granted OTS benefit or waiver of interest fully or partially. If petitioner offers reasonable settlement, I direct the respondents to consider the same and permit settlement and then withdraw RR proceedings. However, any claim for waiver of full or partial interest should be considered only after payment of balance loan amount excluding interest and if 2 balance loan amount is so paid, then recovery also should be kept in abeyance until decision is taken by the first respondent on the claim for waiver. Review Petition is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms