High Court Kerala High Court

O.K.Suresh Kumar vs The Kerala State Development on 2 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
O.K.Suresh Kumar vs The Kerala State Development on 2 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1890 of 2010(I)


1. O.K.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.O.A.KUMARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. O.A.GOPI, S/O.C.T.AYYAPPAN,

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :02/08/2010

 O R D E R
                      S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C)No. 1890 of 2010
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioners availed of a loan of Rs.1,52,725/- from

the respondent-Corporation. They committed default in

repayment. By notice dated 19.10.2004, they were directed

to pay an amount of Rs.1,62,858/-. On receipt of the same,

the petitioners paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 13.04.2004

and another Rs.35,000/- on 28.03.2005. Thereafter for

sometime the petitioners did not pay any amount.

Subsequently the petitioners approached the respondent for

closing the loan account. The respondent directed the

petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.52,850/- towards

settlement of the loan account. Petitioners paid that

amount and their account was closed as is clear from Ext.P3

receipt issued to the petitioners. That was on 18.06.2008.

Long thereafter on 05.12.2009, the petitioners were

directed by Ext.P4 to pay a further amount of Rs.1,35,765/-

W.P.(C)No. 1890 of 2010
-2-

on the reason that the petitioners’ loan account was

wrongly closed. Subsequently by Ext.P6 the petitioners

were directed to pay around Rs.1,43,000/-. Petitioners have

filed this writ petition challenging the said demand seeking

the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibits P4
to P6 issued by the Respondent and quash the same by
issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ, order or direction.

ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
writ, order or direction forbearing the Respondent from
proceeding against the Petitioners for any alleged default
in repayment of the loan availed by them.

iii) Declare that in view of Exhibit P3 settlement of accounts,
the Respondent is not entitled to demand any additional
amounts from the Petitioners.”

2. Counter affidavit, statement and additional

statement have been filed on behalf of the respondent.

According to the learned counsel for the respondent,

petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,28,007/- as on

18.06.2008.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed by

the respondent it is stated thus:

W.P.(C)No. 1890 of 2010
-3-

“15. It is submitted that the 1st Petitioner has to remit a total
amount of Rs.145839/- as on 18.02.2010 which is in due to the
respondent corporation. However, pursuant to the government
order G.O. No.100/09 dated 12.11.2009 an order of waiver/one
time settlement scheme for debts of members of Scheduled
caste & Scheduled Tribes. As per the order government have
decided to waive the loans upto Rs.25000/- and one time
settlement of loans above Rs.25000/- and is overdue by
3.1.2006, the 1st petitioner is entitled for a waiver and he has to
remit only Rs.104386/- as on 18.2.2010 as per the Government
Order marked as Ext.R(a). A true copy of the statement of
accounts are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R(c).”

5. In view of the peculiar circumstances, I am

inclined to direct the respondent to close the account on

payment of the amount of Rs.1,04,386/- stated in paragraph

15 of the counter affidavit. Accordingly the petitioners shall

pay the said amount of Rs.1,04,386/- within one month

which would be treated as full and final settlement of the

petitioners’ loan account.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE

shg/