IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26704 of 2010(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JAYALAKSHMY,D/O.SUKUMARA PANIKER,AGED 35 YEARS, PANAMOOTIL HOUSE,KEZCHERRIMEL, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE,CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICER, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE , CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVENCORE, CHENGANNUR BRANCH,CHENGENNUR,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26704 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the 5th respondent Bank in the year 2004 under the 'PMRY' Scheme as a measure of self- employment. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner could not effect the timely repayment; under which circumstance, the Bank proceeded with further steps resorting to the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Ext.P1, which made the petitioner to approach the Court after filing Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent/District Collector for enabling the petitioner to clear the liability in respect of the principal amount by way of instalments. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Bank as well as the learned Government Pleader for the other respondents as well. 3. Going by the admitted pleadings and materials on record, the factum of liability stands rather conceded from the part of the petitioner. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to a poor section of society and that the loan itself was availed under the 'PMRY' Scheme, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability 2 WP(C) No. 26704/2010 by way of ‘ten’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of September, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 20th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits on instructions that by virtue of the very nature of the scheme and the loan transaction the 'subsidi' amount, equal to a sum of nearly Rs.7,500/- has already been given credit to and only the balance is sought to be realized from the petitioner. It is further made clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the 5th respondent by filing a representation for extending some or other concessions/allowances, if any, and on filing any such representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate relief shall be extended to the extent permissible, within three months thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc