IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13502 of 2009(G)
1. K.PARAMESWARAKURUP,S/O.KUNJAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R)
... Respondent
2. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 13502 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 4th June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had availed a loan from the second
respondent in the year 1997, for starting the Hollow Bricks
Manufacturing Industry. Subsequently, the petitioner turned to
be a chronic defaulter, which made the second respondent to
proceed against the petitioner by way of appropriate steps, which
however was sought to be intercepted by filing O.P.No. 38227 of
2002, where interference was declined, but for giving some
breathing time to the petitioner to approach the respondent-
Board for redressal of his grievances; simultaneously directing to
defer the coercive steps for a period of three months, provided
the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. Five lakhs within one month
as specified therein. Despite the specific direction, as above,
nothing was paid from the part of the petitioner, which made the
respondent- Board to proceed against the petitioner with further
W.P.(C) No. 13502 OF 2009
2
steps. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P(C)18012 of 2008, where the earlier turn of events was
specifically referred to and the said Writ Petition was dismissed in
limine. Aggrieved by the said verdict, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing W.A.No. 242 of 2009, which culminated in
Ext.P4 verdict.
2. As observed by the Division Bench of this Court, the only
contention then projected by the petitioner before the Division
Bench was to have his application for OTS considered by the
Board, which alone was granted by this Court, while passing the
verdict on 12.02.2009. It is without any regard to the course
and proceedings still date, the petitioner has now chosen to
approach this Court again with the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits
that the case of the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy
at all, particularly when after making use of the money, he
constructed some buildings and that the said buildings have
been let out to strangers generating income by way of rent.
This fact is also stated as mentioned in the earlier verdict passed
W.P.(C) No. 13502 OF 2009
3
by this Court in O.P.No. 38227 of 2002 (paragraph No.5).
Considering the facts and circumstances, absolutely no
interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed
accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk