IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 10329 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.GANGADHARAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SHANKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT "SREE NILAYAM", P.O.KUNDAMKUZHI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 541. THE MANAGING PARTNER, CHANDRAGIRI METALS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CHATTANCHAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM - 33. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, HIGH LANE PLAZA, M.G.ROAD, ANEBAGILU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.V.B. UNNIRAJ, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10329 OF 2008-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner impugns Ext. P2, a notice issued by the 1st respondent invoking its right under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. 2. Petitioner submits that prior to Ext. P2, he had applied for one time settlement by submitting Ext. P3. According to him, even after Ext. P2 was issued, in pursuance to Ext. P3 request made by him for one time settlement, meetings were convened on 14.2.2008 and 27.2.2008. He would complain that while the matter remained under discussion, the respondents have taken over one of the mortgaged properties. It is at that stage, complaining the alleged highhanded action of the respondents this writ petition has been filed. 2. Counsel for the respondents submit that the outstanding amount from the petitioner towards principal amount is more than Rs.8 lakhs and that in the discussions that were held in pursuance to Ext. P3 request of the petitioner, the petitioner did not express any willingness to make a satisfactory offer and therefore the proposal itself has been rejected by the Corporation. According to him, it is only on rejection of the request W.P.(C) No. 10329 OF 2008 - 2 - for one time settlement that the Corporation proceeded to take over possession of one of the mortgaged items. 3. Since the request for one time settlement has been rejected, I do not find anything wrong in the action taken by the respondents in exercise of their contractual rights. Therefore, the further action taken by the respondents in pursuance to their right under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act is only to be upheld and I do so. 4. Though the counsel for the petitioner expressed his willingness to revise his offer, since the One Time Settlement Scheme is no longer in force, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction in this behalf. 5. However, having regard to the complaint of the petitioner that he has not been issued any communication indicating his outstanding liability, I direct that within 2 weeks from today the Corporation will intimate the petitioner the liability that is due from him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-