IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18746 of 2010(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RENUKA DEVI,W/O. GANGADHARAN, MANKARA HOUSE, PALAYAPATTI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 039. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) CHITTUR 678014. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMATTI VILLAGE, CHITTUR PALAKKAD - 678014 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 18746 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.10010/2010 seeking for the benefit of 'OTS' to clear the liability to the 1st respondent. After considering the rival submissions, Ext.P8 judgment was passed by this Court on 24.03.2010, whereby the claim of the petitioner was ordered to be considered and to extend the eligible benefit thereunder. Pursuant to this, the application preferred by the petitioner was considered and the benefit of 'OTS' was extended to the petitioner; but the same could not be satisfied on time. Because of the nature of the course of events pursued after Ext.P8 judgment, it is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the non satisfaction of the amount due under the 'OTS' is not because of any wilful default. It is stated that copy of Ext.P8 judgment was forwarded to the concerned respondent, along with Ext.P9 letter dated 24.03.2010 sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The direction contained in the judgment was communicated by the petitioner to the 1st respondent vide Ext.P9 notice issued by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 24.03.2010, which was served to the 1st respondent as borne by the endorsement on the postal acknowledgment card returned. The learned counsel further submits that the 2 WP(C) No. 18746/2010 delay was obviously due to the fact that Ext.P10 communication granting the benefit of 'OTS' was let known to the counsel for the petitioner and that it took some time for the counsel to communicate the position to the party/petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that, eventhough Ext.P10 is dated 12.05.2010, the same was actually signed on 20.05.2010 and was sent only thereafter. The prayer of the petitioner is only to give one months' time to satisfy the entire amount under the 'OTS' granted by the 1st respondent. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits on instructions that the course and events as narrated by the petitioner are not fully correct. The learned standing counsel also submits that, the benefit of the 'OTS' can be extended to the petitioner only on condition that the petitioner satisfies interest in respect of the belated payment as well. 4. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire amount under the 'OTS' with interest as prescribed within one month; failing which, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc