IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13653 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.V.ANTONY, S/O.VARGHESE, VALIYAVEETTIL, PATHIRAPALLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., DISTRICT OFFICE, C.C.N.B.ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-II REP.BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (R.R), AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PURAKKADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,K.S.B.C.DEVP.CO FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.13653 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan from the first respondent in July 1998. But the said repayment could not be effected because of some unforeseen circumstances, which made the petitioner a defaulter. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after expiry of nearly eight years, the first respondent, particularly with the help of the revenue authorities, are proceeding with coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, which made the petitioner to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, by filing C.C.No.18/2009 for redressal of the grievance. However, in spite of raising a plea of limitation and other vital contentions, the sixth respondent dismissed the complaint preferred by the petitioner. Since copy of the order was not served to the petitioner and the respondents concerned proceeded with the steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.7857 of 2010, which was disposed as per Ext.P5 verdict, W.P(C) No.13653 of 2010-F 2 whereby the coercive steps were intercepted for a period of six weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is still to be served with a copy of the order stated as passed by the fifth respondent in C.C.No.18 of 2009 and as such, he is virtually prevented from availing the statutory remedy, while the coercive steps have been revived after the expiry of the period of six weeks mentioned in Ext.P5 verdict. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the first respondent, as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is very much entitled to have a 'free copy' of the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, by virtue of the stipulation under Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. In the said circumstances, the sixth respondent is directed to serve a certified copy of the order stated as passed in C.C.18/2009 to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer the statutory remedy, if at all he is aggrieved in W.P(C) No.13653 of 2010-F 3 any manner. The coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till expiry of one month from the date of serving copy of the order as aforesaid. All the issues raised in the Writ Petition with regard to the merits are left open. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab