IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9443 of 2011() ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. B.SHAIK MUSTAFA, S/O.BAPU SAHIB, AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, BROTHERS COIR WORKS, X/98A, PARUTHIKKAD, ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD. 2. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.MOHAMMED BASHEER, ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD-678001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678101 BY G.P.SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.9443 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition was filed challenging revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P5 series notices, for realising amounts due from the petitioners under a 'margin money loan' availed from respondents 1 to 3. 2. Contention of the petitioners was that, as per Ext.P6 scheme formulated by the State Government, the petitioners were entitled for 'One Time Settlement' of the margin money loan account, under which the petitioners will be entitled for waiver of considerable amounts. 3. Through an interim order issued by this Court on 25.3.2011, the 3rd respondent was directed to consider the request for settlement of the loan account and to take an appropriate decision. It is reported that pursuant to the direction, settlement was arrived and petitioners had paid the entire amounts due under the settlement. W.P.(C)No.9443 of 2011 -: 2 :- 4. Petitioners raise a further contention that, they are entitled for investment subsidy, with respect to which a claim raised by the petitioners have not been considered. It is evident that, petitioners have raised such a claim through Ext.P7 request submitted before the 3rd respondent. I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to consider the claim and to take appropriate decision thereof, within a time limit to be specified. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the claim made by the petitioners for allowing investment subsidy as per Ext.P7 and to take a decision thereof, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt