IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 589 of 2008(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.890/2007 Dated 15/11/2007IN WPC 17995 OF 2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER ----------------- T.A. TONY, SON OF ANTONY, THADIKKARAN HOUSE, EDATHURUTHY VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SDECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRICHUR (LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY) 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, P.B. NO. 510, THRISSUR. R1 BY SC SRI. HARIHARAPUTHRAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P.No. 589/2008 in RP 890/2007 in W.P.C. NO.17995 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Heard counsel for review petitioner and counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 6. Review petitioner was granted waiver of penal interest and other charges on condition of settlement of liability by 31.8.2007. However, petitioner settled liability only on 1.12.2007 and therefore respondents 1 and 6 declined to grant the benefit. Petitioner's case is that respondents without noticing the judgment proceeded to sell the property again within the time granted under the judgment for payment. However, counsel for KSFE submitted that it was done under a mistake and the same was withdrawn vide Annexure J dated 17.8.2007. Inspite of Annexure J proceedings, petitioner did not settle liability within the time granted by this Court and consequently petitioner was denied the benefit of the judgment that is with regard to penalty, collection charges, etc. Even after issuing Annexure J, KSFE has not demanded the actual amount payable by the review petitioner 2 exclusive of penal interest and charges referred to in the judgment. Moreover petitioner has also made payment though with a delay only on 1.12.2007. R.P. is therefore disposed of directing the Branch Manager of KSFE to grant refund of penal interest, if charged, in excess of one per cent to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3