IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14663 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.P.VIJAYAN PILLAI,PLATHARA HOUSE, MANIMALA POST,VELLAVOOR HOUSE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PROJECT OFFICER,KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,DISTRICT OFFICE,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, MANIMALA POST. 4. THE SECRETARY,KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD FOR R1 & R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 14663 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioner's property of 80 cents of land comprised in Re-survey No. 321/6/1 at Vellavoor village, to recover the loan arrears due from the petitioner's industrial unit, raising many a ground. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 representation. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on an earlier occasion, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the course and conduct of the petitioner was not correct or proper warranting interference. It is also pointed out that, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court, along with his wife, by filing WP(C) 4327/2004, wherein interference was made on condition; which however was not satisfied and it was suppressing the above vital fact as to the finalisation of the proceedings, that the petitioner who was first petitioner in the above Writ Petition has come forward, seeking for the reliefs in respect of the very same cause of action. 3. The petitioner has filed I.A. 6155/2010 producing certain additional documents as Exts.P9 to P11. Ext.P9 is the Revenue Recovery 2 WP(C) No. 14663/2010 notice dated 04.12.2003 demanding a sum of Rs.8,23,643/- with interest; which itself was impugned in the earlier Writ Petition. It is very much discernible from the judgment dated 06.02.2004 passed by this Court in WP(C) 4327/2004 that the above recovery proceedings were intercepted by this Court directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within one month, giving appropriate directions to concerned respondent to finalise the matter after considering the representation. 4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the condition imposed by this Court was not satisfied; under which circumstance, the Tahsildar proceeded with further steps and the property having an extent of 32.55 ares was attached. Pursuant to this, one of the brothers of the petitioner approached the Civil Court stating that a portion of the said property to an extent and nearly 12.14 ares had already been conveyed to him and that he was having co-ownership right over the property. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the District Collector reviewed the matter and it was accordingly, that the present property was sought to be attached. It is also stated that when the Tahsildar was proceeding with the steps for attachment, he was threatened, which made the Tahsildar to approach the Police for help and it was pursuant to the help given by the police, that the property was attached. The learned standing counsel also submits that the loan amount was not utilised for the 3 WP(C) No. 14663/2010 purpose for which it was given and that it was misused for constructing a two-storied building by the petitioner, which is now being rented out, though the loan extended was for 'industrial purpose'. The correctness of the said submission is strongly rebutted from the part of the petitioner, stating that there was no such misuse. However, this Court finds that the course pursued by the petitioner without revealing anything as to the filing of the earlier Writ Petition is liable to be deprecated in the strongest possible words. 5. The petitioner has now filed I.A. 7389/2010 seeking to receive an affidavit, wherein it is stated that this Writ Petition was filed without giving proper instructions to the Counsel and in a haste, when confronted with the coercive proceedings. It is stated that the earlier Revenue Recovery notice and other documents produced as Exts.P9 to P11 in I.A. 6155/2010 could not be traced out and filed along with the Writ Petition. It is also stated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that the petitioner could not instruct the counsel as to the filing of the earlier case [WP(C) 4327/2004] which was disposed as per judgment dated 06.02.2004, however expressing regrets in this regard. The explanation offered from the part of the petitioner does not inspire confidence and is not palatable to this Court. The petitioner has simply taken this Court for a ride and the suppression as to the filing of the earlier Writ Petition cannot be left as it is, 4 WP(C) No. 14663/2010 in quite a casual manner. However, this Court taking a lenient view, based on the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel, does not intend to initiate any further proceedings against the petitioner but for declining interference in the Writ Petition with cost. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc