IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30235 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.V.JAYAKUMAR ATHULYA, PALLATHU,PERUMKADAVILA PO, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), NEYYATTINKARA. 3. THE INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PERUMBAZATHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R3 BY ADV. SRI. S. SREEKUMAR, SC, INDIAN BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30235 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is a Retired School Teacher, who had started two small scale industrial units by availing financial assistance from the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the industrial units could not be functioned after 2007 since the Municipality had refused renewal of licence. Consequently repayment in the loan account was defaulted and revenue recovery steps were initiated at the behest of the 3rd respondent, by issuing Ext.P1 and P2 notices by the 2nd respondent. 2. Eventhough the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent Bank seeking re-scheduling of the loan or for waiver of interest/penal interest, for settlement of the account, the same was not considered, is the allegation. Since coercive steps are being initiated the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain such steps and also seeks direction to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted in this regard. 3. Heard; Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 2004 and there is chronic default in W.P.(C).30235/10 -2- repayment. It is further submitted that industrial units were not functioning and the petitioner has not paid the amounts due, inspite of repeated demands. It is also submitted that after crediting all payments, there is a balance outstanding of around Rs.4.75 lakhs. 4. When the writ petition came up for consideration, this court had granted an interim stay against coercive steps of recovery, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within 3 weeks from 1.10.2010. It is stated that the condition has already been complied with. 5. I do not find any legally tenable ground to interfere with the proceedings of recovery now initiated. However, learned counsel sought indulgence of this court in permitting payment of the balance outstanding in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. He also seeks further direction to the 3rd respondent Bank to consider the request for waiver of interest and penal interest, to the possible extent. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the amounts in instalments, within a reasonable time. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery W.P.(C).30235/10 -3- initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 & Ext.P2, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the 3rd respondent seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent and that the Bank will be free to consider such request and to take appropriate decision thereof. 9. It is further made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery on the basis of the notices already issued, and the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb