IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 753 of 2008()
1. FATHIMA M.A., W/O.K.Y.RASHEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :04/04/2008
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W. A. NO. 753 OF 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th April, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L. DATTU, C.J:
Appellant/Petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.6 Lakhs some time in the year
1997 for the purpose of starting Bakery business. She has committed default in
payment of the amounts due to the respondent, Financial Corporation. The
respondents have initiated proceedings by issuing revenue recovery notices to
recover the amounts due to them from the petitioner. Aggrieved by this action of the
respondents, petitioner was before this court in W.P.(C). No.8537/08 seeking the
following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to proceed
further with revenue recovery steps including sale of the property
specified in Ext.P3 before exploring the possibility of One Time
Settlement in the matter of petitioner’s liability due to them with
notice and opportunity of hearing to her.
(b) Grant such other reliefs that this Honourable Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The learned Single Judge, taking a very sympathetic view in the matter,
has directed the petitioner to pay 1/4th of the amounts due to the respondent,
Financial corporation on or before 31.3.2008 and the balance amount to be paid in
equal monthly instalments.
3. Even a most beneficial and harmless order passed by the learned Single
Judge has become the subject matter of this Writ Appeal. Once again, the same
contentions canvassed in the Writ Petition, are reiterated before us. The only
W.A.NO.753/08 2
contention that the petitioner canvasses before this Court is that she has some
financial difficulties and she is not in a position to discharge the liability as directed
by the learned Single Judge. Time and again, the Apex Court has stated that the
administrative decisions taken by the Financial Corporations shall not be lightly
interfered with by this Court, unless those orders are either unfair, unjust or arbitrary.
In U.P. Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd and Others (AIR 1993
SC 1435). the Apex Court has held as follows:
“In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ
court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory
violation on the part of the Corporation, or (2) where the
Corporation acts unfairly i.e. unreasonably. Acting unfairly or
unreasonably does not mean that the High Court exercising its
jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution can sit as an
Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the Corporation and
seek to correct them. That is not the function of the High Court
under Article 226. Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative
law was not supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate
authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints – self-
imposed undoubtedly – of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring
them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction
may become rudderless.”
4. In the instant case, it is not in dispute, nor can it be disputed by the
petitioner that she has defaulted in paying the amounts due to the respondent,
Financial Corporation. In order to recover the amounts due to it, the Financial
Corporation has initiated proceedings by resorting to the provisions of the Revenue
Recovery Act by issuing demand notice. The notice so issued by the Corporation
cannot be said that it is in violation of any of the statutory provisions of the
Corporation. Nor, can it be said that the Corporation has acted unfairly,
unreasonably and unjustifiably. In view of that, in our opinion, firstly the learned
W.A.NO.753/08 3
Single Judge ought not have interfered with Ext.P3 notice issued by the Financial
Corporation. However, in exercise of the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction,
and taking a very sympathetic view in the matter, and also taking into consideration
the illness and the financial constraints pleaded by the petitioner, the learned single
Judge has given some instalment facilities to the petitioner to pay the amounts due
to the respondent Corporation.
5. Having obtained such an order, the petitioner ought to have been
satisfied. Instead of that, the petitioner has filed yet another Appeal questioning an
harmless order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not intend to
encourage this frivolous appeals. Therefore, interference with the orders passed by
the learned single Judge is not called for. Lastly, the Affidavit filed by the petitioner
stating that she will sell the mortgaged property, cannot be acceded to by us.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
kbk. JUDGE