IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7073 of 2008(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.A.JOSEPH, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PULIMOOTTIL SHOPPING ARCADE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA-685 584, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, PULIMOOTTIL SHOPING ARCADE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA-685 584. BY ADV. SRI. V.B. UNNIRAJ, SC FOR R1 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7073 OF 2008 P ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the demand for collection charges and there is a further prayer to permit the petitioner to settle the liability as per Ext.P1 on or before 31st of May 2008. 2. Petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent Corporation. It is stated that by an agreement for OTS, petitioner was to pay Rs.14 lakhs out of which Rs.1 lakh is already paid. According to the petitioner, for paying the balance Rs.13 lakhs, respondents may be directed to grant him time till 31st of May, 2008. However, when the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel submitted that he will be satisfied, if time is granted till 31st of March, 2008. 3. This request made by the counsel for the petitioner is opposed by the respondents stating that the respondents and the petitioner had discussed about the OTS on 28/10/2007 and that as against the total liability of Rs.29 lakhs, it was agreed to be WPC 7073/08 :2 : settled on payment of Rs.14 lakhs, provided the petitioner pays the amount as agreed during the course of the discussions. It is also stated that ordinarily, a defaulter is given only three months time to comply with the deposit as per OTS, but in the case of the petitioner a longer time till 29th of February, 2008 was granted. It is also stated that in Ext.P1 itself it was indicated that if amount is not paid before 29/2/2008 as agreed, the facility will stand recalled. Despite all this, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that if the petitioner is able to pay the amount as per OTS before 7th of March, 2008, they are still willing to permit the petitioner to settle the liability as agreed. 4. OTS is a matter of contract between the parties. In this case, the petitioner contends that by Ext.P1 which was received by the petitioner on 25th of February, 2008, petitioner was informed that he should make payment before 29/2/2008. According to him though he proved his bonafides by paying Rs.1 lakh in terms of Ext.P1, in view of the paucity of time, he could not raise funds and settle the liability before 29/2/2008. It may be true that the petitioner was informed formally by Ext.P1 that he should settle the liability by 29/2/2008, but as pointed out by the learned counsel for WPC 7073/08 :3 : the KFC, these were the terms which were agreed between the parties in the meeting held on 28/10/2007 and these terms were agreed by both the parties. If that be so, the petitioner was fully aware that he will have to discharge the entire liability before 29/2/2008. Facts being so, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that there was shortage of time to raise funds on receipt of Ext.P1 and before the cut off date expired on 29/2/2008. As already noticed, OTS is a matter of contract between the parties. In this case, the petitioner having agreed to discharge the liability before 29/2/2008, I do not think that this court will be justified in forcing a term on the respondents against its will. 5. However, I record the submission of the standing counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner pays the amounts in default on or before 7/3/2008, that will be accepted in full and final settlement of his liability. I also direct that if payment is made as per the OTS, petitioner will not be made liable for Revenue Recovery charges. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp