IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36550 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.SURESH KUMAR,S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,R/AT 'THAMAPURTTY',CHENTHAPUR,DECENT JUNCTION, MUKHATHALA PO,KOLLAM,PIN 691 577. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, YMCA, BUILDING, KOLLAM 697 001, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, YMCA BUILDING, KOLLAM 691 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 36550 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order, direction, directing the respondents not to go ahead with the proceedings contemplated under Ext.P3 and quashing the same. ii) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order , direction, directing the respondents to provide all benefits available to a loanee under OTS or compromise settlement with regard to his business loan availed from the respondents as allowable under law for SSI units. iii) any other appropriate relief to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the industrial unit in question sustained heavy loss and closed down, as early as in the year 2001, and the recovery steps were being pursued since then. It is admitted that, eventhough the revenue WP(C) .36550/2010 2 recovery proceedings for realisation of the amounts was initiated and sale was proclaimed on different occasions, sale could not be materialised. It is mentioned that the 1st respondent had taken over possession of a vehicle and dismantled the same. They also sold the machineries in public auction, during the year 2003. According to the petitioner, they could not carry on business activities in the factory thereafter. It is also complained that inspite of repeated requests, statement of accounts were not furnished to the petitioner. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is pointed out that the petitioner had filed two writ petitions earlier OP.No.8218/2002 and WP(C).No.37/2004. The co- obligant of the loan transaction had filed another writ petition, WP(C).No.36312/2005 in which the firm was represented by the petitioner, who is cited as 4th respondent. The above writ petitions were filed challenging the very same recovery steps. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had not revealed about any such cases in the present writ petition. It is further pointed out that, in the writ petition filed as OP.No.8218/2002, this court had issued a direction to clear the dues on or before 30.5.2002. WP(C) .36550/2010 3 But the petitioners failed to comply with the condition imposed. Thereafter steps under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act was proceeded. Again in WP(C).No.737/2004 indulgence was shown to the petitioner to arrange sale of the plant and machinery and the Corporation was directed to permit to such sale. Such facility was granted on the basis of a specific undertaking made on behalf of the petitioner that the entire liability will be settled before 10.4.2004. It is further stated that even thereafter on approach made by the partners of the firm, the Corporation had accepted proposal for 'One Time Settlement' and the petitioners were allowed to settle the account on payment of a sum of Rs.29.25 lakhs during the year 2008. But the firm or the co-obligant have not availed any such opportunity. It is further stated that the balance outstanding as on 1.12.2010 will come to Rs.86.92 lakhs . 4. Considering the contentions raised, I am of the view that the petitioner has not approached this court revealing all the material facts. It is evident that there is a purposeful suppression of material facts regarding cases filed on previous occasions. The petitioner had approached this court not with WP(C) .36550/2010 4 clean hands. Hence none of reliefs sought for by the petitioner deserves consideration. Further in view of the facts as stated by the 1st respondent, it is evident that the attempt from the side of the petitioner is only to see that the amount due is not recovered by any method which is legally allowable to the respondent Corporation. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .36550/2010 5