IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 613 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.18652/2001 Dated 13/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- V.M.NIZAR, VADAKKAYIL, MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.V.GEORGE, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM. 2. IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESETNED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 6. V.M.SHAHAVAS, VADAKKAYIL, MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA. 7. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PINAV, DISTRICT IDUKKI. ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1, R4, R5 & R7 SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. --------------------------------- W.A. No. 613 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He availed a loan from the 2nd respondent Bank. When he committed default the said Bank moved the Arbitrator and obtained an award. The appellant challenged that award before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment. Challenging Ext.P2, mainly, on the ground that his claim for investment subsidy was not considered, the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition, the point regarding lack of standing of the District Co-operative Bank, Idukki, to institute the arbitration case was also taken. When the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge, the only point canvassed was concerning his entitlement to get investment subsidy. The learned Single Judge noted that the investment subsidy is to be granted by the Government. His claim against the Government will not stand in the way of recovering the amount due from him to the Bank. On that ground, the writ W.A.No.613/2009 2 petition was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. In this appeal, several other grounds are taken. But, the scope of the appeal is only limited. We are concerned only with the correctness of the decision taken by the learned Single Judge on the claim of the petitioner regarding investment subsidy. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The claim of the petitioner against the Government for payment of investment subsidy cannot stand in the way of the Bank recovering the amount due from the appellant. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. But, it is clarified that the directions issued by the Co-operative Tribunal in Ext.P2 concerning the investment subsidy and also regarding his claim that Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh only) paid by him was not credited in his loan account will not be affected by the judgment under appeal. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps