IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 996 of 2009(R) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAJ. (RTD) C.J.THOMAS, AGED 76, S/O.YOHANNAN VARGHEESE, RESIDING AT ANSU VILLA KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. EMINENT SEA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,PLOT NO.9 COCHIN FISHERIES HARBOUR, THOPPUMPADY,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE VELLAYAMBLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KESTEN ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 996 OF 2009 R -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2009 JUDGMENT I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. The prayers are two in number, which are as follows: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Ext.P2 and quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, direction or order directing the respondents not to resort to any recovery proceedings till the claim raised by the petitioner before the State Commission for Consumer Redressal ie. OP 18/2003 is finally decided.” 2. Case of the petitioner is based on the contention that the petitioner had approached the State Commission for Consumer Redressal vide OP No.18/03. Petitioner is an Ex-service man. According to petitioner, though a loan was sanctioned, the entire WPC.996/09 R 2 amount was not released. Therefore, the Company filed a petition before the State Commission, which has dismissed it, holding that it is a commercial transaction and also barred by limitation. The petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.18789/08 before this Court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the matter is not yet considered, it is not fair on the part of the respondents to resort to revenue recovery proceedings after filing of the Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition today. In the light of this fact, this Writ Petition has become infructuous and it is closed. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach any other Forum for ventilating any right he has. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge