IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 11105 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.RAJENDRAN, S/O.K.E.KESAVAN, KONNOTH THARAYIL HOUSE, VAYALAR EAST P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, VAYALAR EAST, CHERTHALA TALUK. 4. KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.R. HARISH, SC FOR KHADI BOARD GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 11105 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 and to direct the respondents to lift the attachment of the personal immovable properties of the petitioner. A declaration that the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from the personal properties of the petitioner in respect of the dues of the Ayurveda Research and Developmental Trust is also sought for. 2. Petitioner is the Chairman of a Trust by name Ayurveda Research and Development Trust. For availing a financial assistance, it is stated that the trust had hypothecated the properties. In the deed of hypothecation, the petitioner interalia agreed that in the event the 4th respondent not able to satisfy its debts, by proceeding against the assets of the trust, the petitioner's properties will be liable. It is also submitted that the petitioner has executed personal guarantees making his properties liable for the dues of the 4th respondent. 3. Default was committed and recovery proceedings have been WPC 11105/08 :2 : initiated and it is in this background the writ petition has been filed. 4. In this writ petition, petitioner proceeds as though the respondents are incompetent to proceed against his personal properties. In view of the provisions of the hypothecation deed that is referred to by the standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and also the personal bonds that have been executed, petitioner cannot wriggle out of the liability now sought to be enforced against him. 5. That apart, I also find force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C) No.34868/07, which was disposed of by this court by judgment dated 28th of November, 2007. In that judgment, petitioner only contested his liability to pay the collection charges and this court directed that further proceedings against him will be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.3 lakhs and make a representation for waiving collection charges. It is stated that despite extensions granted by this court, petitioner did not make remittance as directed in that judgment. WPC 11105/08 :3 : 6. If default has been committed in complying with the judgment referred to above, it is not open to the petitioner to approach this court again, raising different contentions, but objecting to the very same proceedings. I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp