IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 W.A.No.2185 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).13692/2008-E, DATED 04/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------- SIVADASAN, SREE MURUGA CASHEW FACTORY, VALAKOM P.O., RESIDING AT SIVAVILASOM, KURUVELIL P.O., EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. 3. SRI.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MANJARI, CHITTAKKOTTUMURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN. R3 BY ADV.SRI.JOSHY VARGHESE. R4 & R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-2 H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. -------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2185 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.13692 of 2008, dated 4.8.2008. (2) Petitioner had borrowed certain funds from the Kerala Financial Corporation (“Corporation” for short). He has committed default in paying the amounts due to them. Therefore, the Corporation has initiated proceedings against the appellant, to realize the amounts due to them by effecting sale of the charged property. It is at that stage, that, the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground, that, there is yet another person who is prepared to purchase the property for a better price. (3) This Court, by an interim direction, had directed the third party to deposit the amounts due to the Corporation within a particular time frame. Though the third party/3rd respondent had agreed to deposit the money, but he failed to do so, in view of the so-called lis between the petitioner and his workmen. That only means, that, the 3rd respondent has now withdrawn the offer made by him earlier. W.A.No.2185 of 2008 2 - (4) Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge is of the opinion, that, there is no point in granting any further time to the petitioner to settle the amounts due to the Corporation. Accordingly, has rejected the writ petition. (5) Time and again we have observed, that, the administrative decision of the Corporation can be interfered with by this Court only under two circumstances, as explained by the apex Court in the case of U.P.Financial Corporation v. M/s.Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1993 S.C. 1435). In the said decision, the Court has held as under: “In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation, or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e, unreasonably. Acting unfairly and unreasonably does not mean that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution can sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the corporation and seek to correct them. That is not the function of the High Court under Article 226. Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints - self-imposed undoubtedly - of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless”. (6) The recovery proceedings initiated by the Corporation cannot be said, that, they are in violation of the statutory provisions. Further, W.A.No.2185 of 2008 3 - the administrative action taken by the Corporation for recovery of the amounts due to them, in our opinion, cannot be termed as unreasonable or unfair, etc. The Corporation intends to recover the amounts due to them from the appellant/petitioner, who has become a defaulter in paying the amounts due to the Corporation. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the reliefs sought for by the appellant cannot be granted by this Court. (7) Accordingly, while confirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we reject the Writ Appeal. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/dk Judge