IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9931 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PADMAKUMAR.N.P, PROPRIETOR, GARUDA CABLE NET WORK, VYASA MANDIR,KAVILUMPARA PO, KUTTIADI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, VADAKARA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVILUMPARA VILLAGE KAVILUMPARA PO, VADAKARA. 3. THE CANARA BANK, THOTTILPALAM BRANCH, THOTTILPALAM PO, VADAKARA, REP.BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN - SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.9931 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the respondent Bank in the year 2006; but failed to pay the timely instalments. In the said circumstances, there was no other alternative for the Bank to proceed with further steps invoking the remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act; which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent Bank, as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. When the matter came up for consideration earlier on 24.3.2010, the coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- on or before the 31st of March 2010. Subsequently, when the matter came up again on 9.4.2010, it was reported that the condition was not complied with; under which circumstances, it was made clear, that if the condition was not satisfied, the interim order would no more be in existence. W.P(C) No.9931 of 2010-N 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner could not comply with the direction as such, but for a portion of the amount ordered to be remitted. 5. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the total liability is Rs.5,51,323/- as on 23.3.2010. Obviously, there is no challenge with regard to the steps taken by the respondent for realisation of the due amount and the prayer is only to provide some instalments to clear the due amount. Admittedly, since the petitioner has not complied with the direction given by this Court on 24.3.2010 to remit a sum of Rs.75,000/- till date, this Court does not find any merit or bonafides in the submissions made from the part of the petitioner, particularly to have the liability cleared by way of instalments. In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail any other concession or allowance or the benefit of One Time Settlement, if any, from the Bank, who shall consider the same and extend the benefits if any, to the permissible extent. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab