IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3036 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LALITHA N., W/O. LATE GANGADHARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, SENIOR GRADE PEON, THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES LTD., TOWN HALL ROAD, TRICHUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAVARA. 5. K.ANANDAN, VALIAKATTIL VEEDU, VADAKKUM BHAGOM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 6. PADMANABHAN, THANNI VILAYIL, KIZHAKKEKAVU, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM. 7. G.MURALEEDHARAN, PUTHENKAVIL KIZHAKKETHARA, CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., CHAVARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 3036 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The 7th respondent who is the brother of the petitioner availed a loan from the 2nd respondent Corporation for purchase of a vehicle. Apparently, there was default in repayment of the loan and steps were taken against the petitioner at the instance of the 2nd respondent for recovery of the defaulted amount. This included attachment of the petitioner’s salary. Apparently, petitioner had approached this Court earlier in WP(C)19973 of 2007 and this Court directed the 2nd respondent to seize the vehicle, sell the same and recover the sale proceeds. The vehicle was seized and sold for Rs.1,50,000/- and it is stated that the balance comes to Rs.2,78,000/- plus interest. In the meanwhile petitioner’s properties have been attached as evidenced by Exhibit P2. There are three items of properties shown in Exhibit P2. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tahasildar may proceed with the sale of items 1& 3 as shown in Exhibit P2 in the first instance, W.P ( C) No. 3036 of 2008 2 Thereafter, if there is any amount which is still remaining to be recovered, the property shown as Item 2 in Exhibit P2 may be proceeded against. In my view, this is a reasonable submission. But it is appropriate that the petitioner brings it to the notice of the Tahasildar in the first instance. 2. Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent there was no appearance on its behalf. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.Mathew George Vadakkel. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: i) Petitioner may make a request, as mentioned above, by means of representation before the 3rd respondent within a period of one month from today. ii) The 3rd respondent shall then pass a reasoned order and if there are no factors standing in the way of the petitioner’s request being accepted, recovery proceedings may first be directed against the properties shown as Items 1 and 3 in Exhibit P2 . W.P ( C) No. 3036 of 2008 3 iii) Further proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the amount due from the 7th respondent shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken as above. Thereafter, it shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Tahasildar, as mentioned above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 3036 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007