IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29132 of 2010(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MADHU.S.K, VADAKKEMURIYIL HOUSE, KALKOONTHAL, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR – 68001. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE LTD., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DT. - 685 508. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), KSFE LTD., K.O.VARGHESE MEMORIAL BUILDING, BAKERY JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI – 685 603. R1 & R2 BY SRI. M.L. SAJEEVAN, S.C, SRI.T.NAVEEN, S.C, R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 29132 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2010 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of loan availed from the second respondent, revenue recovery proceedings was initiated. The petitioner had initially approached the Government through the Honourable Chief Minister, seeking facility to clear the arrears and to regularise the loan account. Through Ext.P2 letter, the first respondent had conceded that the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account on remitting the existing dues so as to update the account and to revert from the revenue recovery action, so that the loanee can continue the remittances of monthly instalments till termination of the period of the loan. On the basis of Ext.P2, the petitioner was given direction to regularise the loan account within a period of five months. 2. According to the petitioner, he had remitted various amounts as evidenced from Ext.P3 series receipts. It is also contended that the time stipulated for regularisation has not expired. But, complaint of the Wpc 29132/2010 2 petitioner is that, coercive steps for recovery is now being pursued and Ext.P4 notice was issued by third respondent requiring the occupant of the building to vacate the premises. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to restrain the coercive steps and to permit regularisation of the account. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is mentioned that the repayment period of the loan in question is 180 months and the petitioner had remitted only 14 instalments till 30.10.2007. It is stated that consequent to the revenue recovery steps initiated, the petitioner had effected various payments. But the amount required for regularising the account was not remitted till date and there is a total outstanding of Rs.2,07,195/- as on 30.11.2010. 3. When the writ petition came up for consideration, this court granted an interim stay against further steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.25,000/-. It is reported that the said amount has already been paid. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of the instructions submitted that the Wpc 29132/2010 3 outstanding arrears in loan account is around Rs.58,238/- as on 30.9.2010. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also taking note of the contents of Ext.P2 letter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account by paying the arrears due within a short time. 5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps, provided the petitioner remits the entire arrears (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that on payment of the defaulted amounts, the respondents shall revive the loan account and permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with original schedule of repayment. 5. It is made clear that this will not stand in the way of petitioner approaching respondents 1 and 2 seeking settlement under the OTS Scheme and respondents considering such settlement if any such Wpc 29132/2010 4 scheme is available. 6. It is further made clear that on the event of default in payment of the any one of the instalments as stipulated above, respondents will be free to proceed with further steps for recovery and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE lgk