IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1048 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.J.JOSE, THERMADAM HOUSE, CHEMBUTHARA, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.S.N.SREEKANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.D.P. UNIT NO.3, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KFC, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001. 4. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NO.8/1187, ARUMUGAN COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD - 678 007. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R4 SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR ADDL.R4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1048 of 2011-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The matter pertains to coercive steps of recovery initiated for realising amounts due to the 1st respondent Corporation. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 proceedings through which request for compromise settlement was rejected, alleging non participation in the discussions. However, during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was given liberty to approach the 1st respondent for proper negotiations regarding one time settlement/compromise settlement. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent that pursuant to the interim order issued, the petitioner had submitted a representation seeking compromise settlement and on that basis it is proposed to issue notice to the petitioner calling him for a discussion in the matter. It is further submitted that on the basis of such discussions appropriate decision will be taken with respect to the W.P(C) No.1048 of 2011-E 2 compromise settlement. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the offer made by the petitioner for compromise settlement and to take a decision thereof, at the earliest possible. 2. It is made clear that further coercive steps of recovery shall be kept in abeyance till such decision is taken and intimated to the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab