IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23794 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. N.CHITHRAJAN, AGED 32 YEARS, MADAKKAL VEEDU, PUTHUR,P.O. ETTUKUDUKKA KANNUR. 2. M.V.KUNHAPPAN, S/O.LATE KANNAN, MUNDAYATTU VANNATHAN VEEDU, PUTHUR, P.O.ETTUKUDUKKA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SENIOR MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, KARIVELLUR BRANCH, KANNUR- 670001 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R) TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR- 670001 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR - 670001 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERALAM VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK PIN- 670001. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF LL.B ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY DT.4.2.2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT.30.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT T THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DT.19.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.17.6.2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.17.06.2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXTS. ANNEXURE R1(A) COPY OF THE LETTER OF REQUISITION DT.4.6.2010. ANNEXURE R1(B) COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LOAN EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK. ANNEXURE R1(C) COPY OF THE GUARANTEE AGREEMENT DT.6.11.2004 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK. ANNEXURE R1(D) COPY OF THE LETTER OF CONSENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONERS DT. 6.11.2004 IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK. ANNEXURE R1(E) COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LOAN DT.29.10.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH THE PARTICULARS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(F) COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT KEPT BY THE BANK IN ORDINARY COURSE OF ITS BANKING BUSINESS. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23794 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Revenue recovery steps initiated against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due under a loan account, which was availed by the 1st petitioner from the 1st respondent for the purpose of his education, is under challenge in this writ petition. The 1st petitioner had availed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank in the year 2004. The 2nd petitioner , who is the father of the 1st petitioner, stood as guarantor for the loan transaction. According to the petitioner, he has completed the course in the year 2009. But, alleging default in repayment of loan amount, the 1st respondent had initiated steps for recovery. At behest of the 1st respondent, revenue recovery steps were initiated and Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices were issued. According to the petitioners, the repayment in the loan need be effected only after two years of completing the course. It is further contended that being an educational loan, the 2nd petitioner need not have been implicated as a guarantor and the proceedings initiated against W.P.(C) No.23794/2010 2 the 2nd petitioner is not justified. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is mentioned that the repayment period of the loan will start after 12 months of completion of the course or six months of obtaining job, whichever is earlier. As per certificate issued by the University concerned, the 1st petitioner had completed his studies in the year 2007 and the repayment should commence from the year 2008 onwards. But, no payment was effected and the loan account has become a non- performing asset. The revenue recovery request was made when the petitioners defaulted payment of any amounts, inspite of repeated requests, is the contentions. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that inference on merits in the Writ Petition is not at all warranted. Further, it is noticed that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the revenue recovery steps it is left open for him to approach the appropriate authority, who can enter upon an adjudication on the issue. Having not resorted to W.P.(C) No.23794/2010 3 any such remedy, it is not possible for this Court to enter upon any finding on the disputed questions of facts. Hence, I am not inclined to grant any relief in this Writ Petition. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the entire liability within a reasonable time, in instalments. Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent is not favouring any requests on the basis that there is chronic default in effecting any substantial repayments during the last so many years. 5. However, considering the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to pay off the liability within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery, which is initiated pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 notices, provided the petitioner make payment of the entire arrears due in five equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.9.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. W.P.(C) No.23794/2010 4 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioners is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps/9/09