Kerala High Court
P.K. Vijaya vs The District Industries Centre on 13 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 39264 of 2017 (G)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------------
P.K. VIJAYA
W/O. SUKUMARAN, AKHIL FURNITURE WORKS,
MANNOOKKADAN HOUSE, NOOLUVALLY,
CHEMBUCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT
PIN-680684
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR
PIN-680 601
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY,
THRISSUR PIN-680 681
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINITHA B.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 39264 of 2017 (G)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2011 IN
W.P.(C.) NO.18729/11 OF THIS COURT
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RRC 2017/2629/08 DATED 19.10.2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL
-----------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
DCS
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 39264 OF 2017
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the licensee of a furniture unit. The first respondent had provided a Margin Money of Rs. 1,00,000/- for starting the unit. According to the petitioner, the unit could not be started, since the Forest Department did not issue the NOC. The NOC was issued pursuant to the direction in Ext.P1 judgment rendered by this Court and by that time years had passed and the loan fell in arrears. Now, revenue recovery action is initiated, evident from Ext.P2, under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is thus challenging the coercive actions and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined to the arguments seeking to repay the margin money along W.P.(C). No. 39264 of 2017 2 with interest claimed in Ext.P2 in reasonable equated monthly installments, which according to learned counsel is 20, which is stoutly opposed by learned Government Pleader.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay off the outstanding amount, contained in Ext.P2 notice in fifteen equated monthly installments starting from 15.01.2018 and on the corresponding date of the succeeding months. Needless to say, if any of the installments is defaulted by the petitioner, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed, in accordance with law and resurrect the proceedings and recover the amount in lump.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
S HAJI P. CHALY J UDGE DCS