IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 18652 of 2001(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.M.NIZAR, VADAKAYL, MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.V.GEORGE, ADVOCATE, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA CO- OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL , TRIVANDRUM 2. IDUKKI DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. KERALA STATE CO- OPERATIVE BANK, REP.BY ITS M.D. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRTARY TO GOVT. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 6. V.M.SHAHAVAS, VADAKKAYIL, MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA. ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED. 7. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PINAV, DISTRICT , IDUKKI. IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R7 AS PER ORDER DT. 2.7.01 IN CMP. 31446.01. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC,IDUKKI DIST.CO.OP R4, R5 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. 13652/2001 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 28.3.01 IN WA. NO.1593/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 2.5.01 OF THE KERALA CO- OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ARBITRATOR (JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OP. SOCIETIES, IDUKKI )IN ARC. NO.3/91. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P. No. 18652 of 2001-U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges recovery proceedings by a Co- operative Bank on the ground that he is entitled to investment subsidy. But, that is no ground to withhold recovery. If the petitioner is given investment subsidy, he can enjoy that. The question as to whether the petitioner is to be granted subsidy or not, is a decision to be taken by the Government. It is stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of the additional seventh respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to investment subsidy. At any rate, any entitlement of the petitioner to investment subsidy or not, cannot stand in the way of the recovery proceedings, which are under challenge. This petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ms THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P. No. 18652 of 2001-U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J U D G M E N T 13th February, 2008