Kerala High Court
P.Muhammed vs State Of Kerala
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/16TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 25733 of 2017 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
1. P.MUHAMMED,
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI,
PARERI HOUSE, P.O.PAIVALIGE (VIA) UPPALA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. FATHIMA MUHAMMED,
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. U.K ABDUL RAHIMAN,
PARERI HOUSE, P.O.PAIVALIGATE,
(VIA) UPPALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
SMT.VANDANA MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
BRANCH OFFICE: HIGH LANE PLAZA,
M.G ROAD, KASARAGOD -671 121
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
HIGH LANE PLAZA, M.G ROAD, KASARAGOD -671 121
2/-
-2-
WP(C).No. 25733 of 2017 (N)
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KASARAGOD-671 121
6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PAIVALIGE VILLAGE,
(VIA) UPPALA, MANJESHWAR,
KASARAGOD -671 348
R1,R4 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., SC,
SRI.ALEXANDER.C.V., SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 25733 of 2017 (N)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5-11-2016 ISSUED BY R4
TO 1ST PETITIONER U/S 7 OF THE KERALA R.R. ACT, 1968.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5-11-2016 ISSUED BY R4
TO 2ND PETITIONER U/S 7 OF THE KERALA R.R. ACT, 1968.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-11-2016 ISSUED BY R4 TO THE
1ST PETITIONER U/S 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE R.R. ACT, 1968.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/11/2016 ISSUED BY R4 TO THE
2ND PETITIONER U/S 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE R.R. ACT, 1968
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 18-07-2017 ISSUED BY R4 TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER U/S 36 OF THE KERALA R.R ACT,1968
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 18-07-2017 ISSUED BY R4 TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER U/S 36 OF THE KERALA R.R ACT 1968
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ISSUED BY R3 TO
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 23-01-2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25733 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 7th August, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The first petitioner has availed a loan from the Kerala State Financial Corporation (KFC). It is conceded that he could not repay the loan as agreed. Consequently, at the instance of the KFC, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the balance outstanding in the loan account. The said proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the KFC.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners only prayed for indulgence of this Court for remitting the balance outstanding in the loan account in instalments.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the KFC pointed out, on instructions, that a sum of Rs.36,90,095/- is the balance outstanding in the loan account as on today.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem W.P.(C) No. 25733 of 2017 2 it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to pay the outstanding amounts in the loan account with the accrued interest, in eight equated monthly instalments commencing from first of September, 2017. The KFC shall communicate the instalments payable by the petitioners in terms of this judgment sufficiently in advance. Needless to say that if the petitioners remit the amounts due as directed above, coercive action against them shall be deferred. It is made clear that if the petitioners commit default in remitting any one of the instalments as aforesaid, the proceedings already initiated can be revived and continued.
sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE