IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18118 of 2009(H)
1. P.V.MAHESH, S/O.P.K.VASU, AGED 35
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRISSUR.
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.RESHMI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 18118 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
recovery proceedings pursued by the respondents in furtherance of
realization of the amount due from the petitioner in some of the Chits
subscribed from the ‘Sree Thilakam Chits and Kuries’, Kodakara. The
case of the petitioner is that, though the Chits were prized in favour of
the petitioner and the petitioner had effected substantial payments, it
could not be pursued further as the Chit Company subsequently came
to be defunct. The petitioner contends that, at no point of time, had
he ever been served with any notice from the said Company or from the
Official liquidator and hence that there is absolutely no rationale in
proceeding with the coercive steps.
2. The first respondent has filed a statement pointing out the
relevant facts and figures, asserting that the petitioner was a chronic
defaulter. Despite the service of notice in the relevant proceedings, it
was never honoured, under which circumstances, there was no other
alternative but for moving the machinery under the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act, pursuant to the requisition made by the Official liquidator.
The first respondent has also produced copies of the relevant
proceedings issued from the office of the Official liquidator and also the
WP (C) No. 18118 of 2009
: 2 :
order passed by this Court on 1st June, 2006 in C.C. 229 of 2005 in
C.P. 1 of 2000, whereby the liability was cast upon the petitioner in the
Writ Petition.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is absolutely
no ground for interference. However, taking note of the persuasive
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner is permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of 3
equal monthly installments. Subject to the above coercive steps are
interfered for a period of 3 months.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd