High Court Kerala High Court

T.G.Sunilkumar vs Regional Manager on 12 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
T.G.Sunilkumar vs Regional Manager on 12 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1378 of 2008(F)


1. T.G.SUNILKUMAR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REGIONAL MANAGER,KERALA STATE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THOTTAKKADU VILLAGE

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THOTTAKKADU

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

7. T.G.SURESH ,S/O.LATE NJANASEELAN

8. R.SREEDEVI, KOLAKKULAM HOUSE

9. BIJU SUKUMARAN, KOLAKKULAM HOUSE

10. M.R.KRISHNANKUTTY, NADUKKAYIL HOUSE

11. T.J.SANTHAMMA, W/O. KRISHNANKUTTY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :12/03/2009

 O R D E R
                     C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
                ....................................................................
                             R.P. No.1378 of 2008 in
                            W.P.(C) No.9507 of 2004
                ....................................................................
                 Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009.

                                           ORDER

Review Petition is filed on the ground that attached equipments

are retained by the Tahsildar without sale. However, Government

Pleader and counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that

petitioner approached the Consumer Court and probably pendency of

litigation led to delay in sale of attached articles. In any case I do not

find any ground to interfere with the judgment in review as there is no

mistake in the judgment. However, considering the financial plight

expressed by the petitioner, I feel petitioner should be granted OTS

benefit or waiver of interest fully or partially. If petitioner offers

reasonable settlement, I direct the respondents to consider the same

and permit settlement and then withdraw RR proceedings. However,

any claim for waiver of full or partial interest should be considered

only after payment of balance loan amount excluding interest and if

2

balance loan amount is so paid, then recovery also should be kept in

abeyance until decision is taken by the first respondent on the claim for

waiver. Review Petition is disposed of as above.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

pms