IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 4008 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SWAMI SUGATHAKUMAR V.O., S/O.V.K. VIVEKANDA, VIVEKANDA MANDIRAM, KUTTICHAL P.O., KATTAKKADA (VIA)., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 574. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER/CHIEF MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4008 of 2010-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.5 lakhs for construction of a building, viz. Vivekananda Shopping Complex at Kuttichal. Even though the loan was repayale in instalments, the petitioner could not remit the amount in time due to various adverse circumstances. According to the petitioner, he has remitted an amount of Rs.5,46,000/- towards repayment of the loan as o n 1.4.2009. 2. The petitioner sought for one time settlement as per application dated 20.7.2009, which is produced as Ext.P2. As a condition for availing of the said scheme, he remitted a sum of Rs.75,000/- also. According to the petitioner, the second respondent offered to settle the account by remitting a total amount of Rs.6 lakhs including the amount of Rs.75,000/- remitted already. The petitioner was called for a discussion and the respondents suggested the petitioner to improve the offer to an amount between Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.6,31,000/-. The petitioner offered to pay Rs.6,10,000/- which offer was accepted by the respondents and the proposal was forwarded to the approval of the General Manager. Thereafter, he was issued with a wpc 4008/2010 2 communication, Ext.P3, whereby the facility for one time settlement has been rejected. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed by the respondents. Going by the statement of accounts, Annexure R1(A), the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,55,618/- as the balance outstanding. The High Power Committee, of the Head Office met on 23.11.2009 in the presence of the Managing Director, decided to defer the enhanced offer from the petitioner. The asset valuation has come to Rs.38 lakhs against a balance outstanding of Rs.7.88 lakhs as on 1.10.2009 It is mentioned that the petitioner was reluctant to enhance his offer and accordingly the Branch Level Committee has rejected his offer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P3 does not evidence consideration of any of the facts and it is a unilateral decision without informing the reason also. I find force in the above submission. The matter requires a fresh consideration. In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the Head Office to reconsider the matter. The petitioner will also be called for discussion. The eligibility of the petitioner for various benefits under the present scheme will be examined afresh and appropriate communication will be wpc 4008/2010 3 issued to him within a period of six weeks from the ate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With regard to the adjustment of Rs.75,000/- already remitted by the petitioner, it will depend upon the settlement, if any, arrived at. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/