IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20864 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANNAMMA EARNEST W/O EARNEST AGED 51 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, FEMINA FOOD INDUSTRIES, U.C. COLLEGE (P.O.) ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ALUVA. 4. CANARA BANK ALUVA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER CANARA BANK. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK FOR R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20864/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed of a loan from the 4th respondent Bank for starting a `Pappadam' Manufacturing Unit under the Self Employment Scheme, framed in terms of the policy of the Government of India, for the benefit of unemployed persons. Admittedly, default was committed and as a result there of which recovery action has now been initiated at the isntance of the respondent Bank, taking recourse to revenue recovery proceedings. The notices issued are Ext.P2 and P3. Counsel for the petitioner challenges Exts. P2 and P3 on the ground that the machinery supplied by the manufactures for which payment has been made availing of the loan from the respondent Bank was defective and that she has filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum WP(c).No.20864/08 2 Ernakulam in CC.No.451/05. It is stated that it was on account of the defect in the machinery, default was committed and therefore the petitioner should not be saddled with the liability at least when the matter is pending adjudication before the CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. The relationship between the petitioner and the Bank is covered by the terms of the agreement. Once financial assistance has been availed of, irrespective of whether the machinery procured utilizing the amount was defective or not, it is the petitioner's liability to discharge the dues. If that be so, there is default and consequently the respondent Bank is entitled to initiate and continue recovery action for realising the amount. Therefore the challenge against Exts.P2 and P3 fails and the writ petition is only to be rejected. 3. However, having regard to the aforesaid facts, I direct that the petitioner be permitted to repay the amount due in 5 equal monthly instalments. It is directed that the WP(c).No.20864/08 3 first instalment shall be paid by the petitioner before 20th August, 2008 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 20th of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance and in case the petitioner commits default in paying any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to continue the recovery proceedings and recover the amount due. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 3 and 4 for compliance. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.20864/08 4