IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30880 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. SIBI AUGUSTINE, VETTIKKAL HOUSE, CHEMPONODA, QUILANDI, KOZHIKODE. 2. SHALLY SIBI, VETTIKKAL HOUSE, CHEMPONODA, QUILANDI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KAMALA BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, R.R., KSFE LTD., KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, CALICUT, LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 30880 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The case of the petitioners is that the steps taken by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act for realizing the amount, stated as due from the petitioners under various chits and loans to which the petitioners are parties, are not correct or sustainable due to many a reason, legal and factual. Even though the petitioners have raised a contention that the alleged liability is 'time barred' and not executable, it is also the case of the petitioners that they are ready to settle the loan account on giving some more concessions, as provided by the respondents in Ext. P4 and P6 -similar cases. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, with reference to the statement filed, submits that the contentions raised by the petitioners are not correct or proper, however adding that the request made by the petitioners for settlement of the liability in tune with Exts.P4 and P6 can W.P.(C) No. 30880 OF 2009 2 definitely be considered and the benefit to the extent as provided in Ext.P4 and P6 can be extended to the petitioners as well. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the revenue recovery proceedings now being pursued against the petitioners are set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider and re-fix the liability of the petitioners in the light of Exts. P4 and P6, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as early as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . On communicating the liability as re-fixed above, it will be for the petitioners to clear the same, within a further period of one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk