IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22199 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MOHAMMED HANEEFA AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. ABBAS MUSTIKUND HOUSE, MULIYAR VILLAGE & POST KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MULLERIA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & MANAGER MULLERIA, KASARAGOD, PIN- 671 543 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ARBITRATOR CUM SALE OFFICER, THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, H.O.KASARGOD, PIN-671 121. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KASARGOD DIST.CO.BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22199 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the recovery steps taken by the respondent Bank, in respect of the outstanding liability under a loan transaction availed by the petitioner in the year, 2001. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the loan availed by the petitioner to an extent of Rs. 1.4 lakhs pertains to 'agricultural sector' and the same was well secured on the basis of the mortgage created over the property in question. But, the repayments could not be effected, because of some unforeseen circumstances, though the petitioner was trying his level best to clear the liability at the earliest. However, the Bank proceeded with steps by filing ARC No. 179 of 2006, leading to an Award, which in turn is sought to be realized by issuing Ext. P1 execution proceedings pursued in the meanwhile. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P2 representation before the sale officer of the respondent Bank for immediate interference and to enable the petitioner to clear the liability by granting six months. The learned counsel also submits, as contended in the Writ Petition, that the W.P. (C) No. 22199 of 2010 : 2 : petitioner is eligible to get the benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme introduced in the year 2008, which aspect has not been considered by the respondents while proceeding with the coercive steps. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that, the loan availed by the petitioner is never a agricultural loan but for domestic purpose and the petitioner does not come within the purview of the Debt Relief Scheme. It is also stated that, Ext. P2 representation has not been obtained to the respondents and the same is now produced only for the purpose of moulding the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the outstanding liability as on 30.6.2010 is Rs. 2,07,772/-, with further interest and costs. 5. After hearing both the sides and considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability by way of reasonable installments. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh within 'two weeks' and the balance amount shall be cleared by way of '3' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th August, 2010; to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of W.P. (C) No. 22199 of 2010 : 3 : the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in clearing outstanding liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd