IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16430 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.A.M.BODY BUILDERS, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR-RAM MANOJ,PORUVAZHI P.O., BHARANIKAVU,SASTHAMCOTTA,KOLLAM-690 520. BY ADV. MR. K.V.SOHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,KUNNATHUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISA- TION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,ANNEXE, MANNANIYYA COMPLEX,ANDAMUKKAM-691 001. 3. THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,KOLLAM BRANCH. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,ASHRAMAM,KOLLAM-2. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU R2 BY ADV. MR. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF R3 BY ADV. MR. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16430 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that, the Industrial Unit of the petitioner having met with the adverse circumstances, is on the process of revival and necessary application had already been preferred before the 4th respondent, as evident from Ext.P6 certificate dated 16.12.2008 issued by the said respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the factum of borrowal of loan from the 3rd respondent Bank, is of course true, but unless and until the petitioner unit is permitted to be revived, the liability towards the Bank and others cannot be satisfied and once such revival is made possible with the intervention of the 4th respondent, it is stated that everything can be cleared accordingly. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that, the petitioner was already extended the benefit of 'OTS' to have it cleared on or before the 31st March, 2009, by remitting a sum of Rs. 325 lakhs, which facility was however not availed by the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits on the basis of instruction stated as received from the 4th respondent, that even though notice was issued to the petitioner and all concerned, to have a hearing in connection with the steps for revival, nobody turned up in the said WP (C) No. 16430 of 2009 : 2 : meeting held on 14.1.02009, which submission is not rebutted from the part of the petitioner. However, in view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the 4th respondent will consider the matter again, if the petitioner earnestly desires to prosecute the same and also taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will appear before the 4th respondent along with proper application and proposal in this regard with notice to the Bank, the petitioner is permitted to file necessary application along with all the relevant testimonials before the 4th respondent within a period of 2 weeks and on such an event, the same shall be considered and disposed of, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The steps in this regard shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd