IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2011/1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7300 of 2011 (J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KURIAKOSE.V.KURIAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.V.KURIAN,VALAYIL HOUSE, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE K.S.F.E.LTD, KATTAPPANA BRANCH, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 508, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE MANAGER,K.S.F.E.LTD,KATTAPPANA BRANCH,KATTAPPANA-685 508, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R), K.S.F.E.LTD,K.O.VARGHESE,MEMORIAL BUILDING BAKERY JUNCTION,KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7300 of 2011 (J) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER :- EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1/04-2 DATED 26.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.SDT/KTM/6031/09-10 DATED 30.6.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2nd AND 3rd PETITIONER. EXT.P3(a) : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING THE ISSUANCE OF EXT.P3. EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7300 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner had subscribed a chitty conducted by respondents 1 and 2, which was prized on the third draw (after payment of the second instalment). It is stated that, inspite of production of salary certificate of two Government employees and title deed of an immovable property having an extent of 25 cents, the 2nd respondent failed to release the prized amount. But after lapse of a considerable period, the recovery steps has now been initiated demanding payment of a sum of Rs.30,310/-, along with future interest. 2. According to the petitioner, the amounts sought to be realised is not actually due from him and since there was failure on the part of the respondents to disburse the prized amount, the petitioner is not liable for payment of the amount sought to be recovered, is the contention. 2 W.P.(C).No.7300 of 2011 3. Heard ; learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the prized amount was not disbursed, due to insufficiency of the security furnished. The prized amount was deposited in a savings bank account maintained by the respondents and the subscriptions due for subsequent months (instalment No.4 to 42) were debited from such deposit till it exhausted. After close of the period of the chit transaction, there remained default with respect to the payment of certain subscriptions and the recovery steps are now initiated since the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amounts in default, even after issuing demand notices. 4. Considering the rival contentions, I do not find any legal ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings of recovery. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the arrears in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. I am of the view that the limited prayer for payment of the amounts in instalments can be considered. 3 W.P.(C).No.7300 of 2011 5. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, the respondents are restrained from proceeding with further steps of recovery on the basis of Ext.P2, provided, the petitioner remits the entire amount due along with interest if any accruing in future, in 4 equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notice already issued. 7. It is made clear that respondents 1 and 2 will furnish to the petitioner a correct statement regarding the actual amount due, in order to facilitate the deposit as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/