IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17506 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY CHARLES, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARCOTIC CELL, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.696, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. *ADDL.R2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R3 THE TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R4 THE TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, PATHANAMTHITTA. (* IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 25/06/2008 IN I.A.NO.7709/2008) ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17506/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14/09/2006 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 03/10/2006 TO R1 BY THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/10/2006 FROM R1 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/12/2006 SUBMITTED BY PETTIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 03/10/2007 IN WPC NO.1779/2007. P6 : COPY OF DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 24/10/2007. P7 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24/03/2009 IN W.A.NO.603/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17506 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan from the 1st respondent Co-operative Society. The loan availed of was in the year 1995, and the principal amount was Rs.15,000/-. Default was committed, and pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C) No.1779/2007, despite the fact that One Time Settlement period had expired, the 1st respondent was generous enough to grant OTS, and that too with an instalment facility. However, admittedly, out of 10 instalments to be paid, the petitioner has paid only 7 instalments. According to the petitioner, at that stage, the respondents made certain illegal demands, and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that despite the leniency shown to the petitioner on one occasion, the petitioner defaulted in making payment. It is stated that it was therefore that they proposed to take action for recovery of the amount due and demanded litigation expenses. WP(C) No.17506/2008 -2- 3. Irrespective of the controversy that raised by both sides, fact remains that by Ext.P6, the petitioner's liability was agreed to be settled under the OTS Scheme, and he was also given instalment facility to pay the amount due, and he has paid a substantial portion of the amount due. Therefore, if the petitioner makes payment of the balance amount due under Ext.P6, the liability of the petitioner should be settled. 4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that if the petitioner pays the balance instalments due under Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from today, the payment will be accepted in full satisfaction of the petitioner's liability. 5. True, the 1st respondent Bank made a demand of litigation expenses. However, having regard to the facts as pleaded in the writ petition, and the submissions made, I do not think that the petitioner should be saddled with that liability. The writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg