IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 753 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8537/2008 Dated 14/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- FATHIMA M.A., W/O.K.Y.RASHEED, PROPRIETRIX, SHIFA BAKE HOUSE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA RESIDING AT 'PARIS', CIVIL STATION ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURM REGION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, KUMARANESAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, DO. DO. BY ADV. SHRI V.B. UNNIRAJ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W. A. NO. 753 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L. DATTU, C.J: Appellant/Petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.6 Lakhs some time in the year 1997 for the purpose of starting Bakery business. She has committed default in payment of the amounts due to the respondent, Financial Corporation. The respondents have initiated proceedings by issuing revenue recovery notices to recover the amounts due to them from the petitioner. Aggrieved by this action of the respondents, petitioner was before this court in W.P.(C). No.8537/08 seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to proceed further with revenue recovery steps including sale of the property specified in Ext.P3 before exploring the possibility of One Time Settlement in the matter of petitioner's liability due to them with notice and opportunity of hearing to her. (b) Grant such other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. The learned Single Judge, taking a very sympathetic view in the matter, has directed the petitioner to pay 1/4th of the amounts due to the respondent, Financial corporation on or before 31.3.2008 and the balance amount to be paid in equal monthly instalments. 3. Even a most beneficial and harmless order passed by the learned Single Judge has become the subject matter of this Writ Appeal. Once again, the same contentions canvassed in the Writ Petition, are reiterated before us. The only W.A.NO.753/08 2 contention that the petitioner canvasses before this Court is that she has some financial difficulties and she is not in a position to discharge the liability as directed by the learned Single Judge. Time and again, the Apex Court has stated that the administrative decisions taken by the Financial Corporations shall not be lightly interfered with by this Court, unless those orders are either unfair, unjust or arbitrary. In U.P. Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd and Others (AIR 1993 SC 1435). the Apex Court has held as follows: "In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation, or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e. unreasonably. Acting unfairly or unreasonably does not mean that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution can sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the Corporation and seek to correct them. That is not the function of the High Court under Article 226. Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints - self- imposed undoubtedly - of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless." 4. In the instant case, it is not in dispute, nor can it be disputed by the petitioner that she has defaulted in paying the amounts due to the respondent, Financial Corporation. In order to recover the amounts due to it, the Financial Corporation has initiated proceedings by resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act by issuing demand notice. The notice so issued by the Corporation cannot be said that it is in violation of any of the statutory provisions of the Corporation. Nor, can it be said that the Corporation has acted unfairly, unreasonably and unjustifiably. In view of that, in our opinion, firstly the learned W.A.NO.753/08 3 Single Judge ought not have interfered with Ext.P3 notice issued by the Financial Corporation. However, in exercise of the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction, and taking a very sympathetic view in the matter, and also taking into consideration the illness and the financial constraints pleaded by the petitioner, the learned single Judge has given some instalment facilities to the petitioner to pay the amounts due to the respondent Corporation. 5. Having obtained such an order, the petitioner ought to have been satisfied. Instead of that, the petitioner has filed yet another Appeal questioning an harmless order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not intend to encourage this frivolous appeals. Therefore, interference with the orders passed by the learned single Judge is not called for. Lastly, the Affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that she will sell the mortgaged property, cannot be acceded to by us. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, kbk. JUDGE