IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6464 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PIOUS THOMAS, S/O.C.T. THOMAS, CHOWATTUKKUNNEL HOUSE, MOONILAVU.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HOSDURG, KANHANAGAD - 671 315, KASARAGO DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MOONNILAVU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR R2 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 6464/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER & DEBT RELIEF SCHEME 2008. P3: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 26/03/2010. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 05/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.6464 of 2011-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Property having an extent of 14 Acres of agricultural land belonging to the petitioner was mortgaged for different loans availed by the family members of the petitioner from the 2nd respondent. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the Bank initiated recovery steps by resorting to steps as contemplated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P7 series demand notices issued in this regard are challenged in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the loans in question were eligible to be settled under the 'Debt Relief Scheme' formulated by the Central Government and on the basis of an approach made in this regard, the petitioner was permitted by the 2nd respondent to settle the entire amounts due under the loan accounts by paying a sum of Rs.34 lakhs, on or before 30.6.2010. It is stated that, eventhough the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs, he failed to W.P(C) No.6464 of 2011-G 2 make deposit of any further amounts, within the time stipulated. It is contended that the petitioner had identified a probable buyer with respect to the property in question and a sum of Rs.26 lakhs was deposited in the account of those persons. Under such circumstances, the petitioner made an attempt to remit the balance amount out of Rs.34 lakhs, for which the settlement was arrived. Since the Bank has not permitted the same and proceeded with further steps of recovery, this writ petition is filed. 3. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that, the Bank had agreed for settlement of the outstanding amounts for a sum of Rs.34 lakhs, which was required to be remitted on or before 30.6.2010. It is stated that such a settlement was arrived when the total outstanding was nearly Rs.50 lakhs, taking into consideration of the 'Debt Relief Scheme' formulated by the Central Government. But after remitting a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- the petitioner had failed to make deposit of any amount. The Bank is also disputing the averments regarding the arrangement of private sale made by the W.P(C) No.6464 of 2011-G 3 petitioner and also disputing the alleged offer for payment made. It is further stated that since the 'Debt Relief Scheme' was not in existence at present, the 2nd respondent Bank is not in a position to grant the benefit as offered earlier, which the petitioner had failed to comply with. The 2nd respondent Bank has no power to enlarge the period fixed under the scheme in question. On the basis of the above mentioned facts, the claims made on the basis of the settlement arrived, is totally unsustainable, is the contention of the 2nd respondent. 4. During pendency of this writ petition, in compliance with the interim orders issued by this Court, the petitioner had remitted a total sum of Rs.10 lakhs and on that basis further recovery steps were stayed. Meanwhile, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had approached the respondent Bank seeking one time settlement of the loan account. But it is stated that, the respondent Bank had not favourably considered such approach. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the basis of an additional statement filed W.P(C) No.6464 of 2011-G 4 before this Court, submitted that, in the representation made with respect to settlement the petitioner had not suggested any amount nor had made any concrete offer for settlement of the account. It is further stated that, a letter was issued in this regard to the petitioner dt.19.4.2011, informing that if the petitioner desire to have one time settlement, he should issue a letter to that effect specifically mentioning the amount of offer and terms of payment. According to the 2nd respondent inspite of such letter issued, the petitioner had failed in making any concrete offer or approaching the respondent Bank with any genuine offer. Under such circumstances, the claim for settlement is unsustainable, is the contention. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the recovery steps initiated. There is no legally tenable grounds raised in order to hold that the petitioner is not liable for payment of any amount. Considering the factual situation as contended by the respondents, this court could not compel the 2nd respondent to settle the account on the basis W.P(C) No.6464 of 2011-G 5 of the Debt Relief Scheme, which is not in operation at present. However, it will be left open to the petitioner to make meaningful approach before the authorities of the Bank in order to arrive at one time settlement, by making any reasonable offers. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that if any such attempt is made, the Bank will consider the same and take appropriate decision. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that, the writ petition can be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make approach for one time settlement as described above. In order to facilitate such approach, the revenue recovery steps can be directed to be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period, subject to conditions. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make approach before the appropriate authority of the 2nd respondent Bank for one time settlement of the arrears by making a concrete offer. If any such approach is made the 2nd respondent shall W.P(C) No.6464 of 2011-G 6 consider the same and take reasonable decision on such request. In order to facilitate the petitioner to make such approach, further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P7 series notice shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 30.6.2011. 8. The offer for one time settlement as directed above shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such request is made, a final decision shall be taken at the earliest. Needless to say that further steps for recovery can be pursued only after taking such decision and intimating the same to the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab