IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 244 of 2007()
1. THANKAM CASHEW EXPORTERS, PALLIKKAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
3. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
4. KOLLAM CASHEW MANUFACTURERS &
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.L.MOHANAN, SC, KFC
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :01/06/2007
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.T.Sankaran, J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.Nos.244 of 2007-E & 241 of 2007-E
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 1st day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
Though the petitioners are different but the cause of action and
the reliefs claimed being common, the learned Single Judge has thought it to
combine both the writ petitions and to pass a common order.
2. In these writ petitions the petitioners are seeking the
following reliefs. They are:
(i) to direct the 3rd respondent/Kerala Financial
Corporation (“Corporation” for short) to consider ‘One
Time Settlement’ application of the petitioners without
insisting for remittance of any amount as a condition
precedent and inform the OTS amount to the 2nd
respondent/Kerala State Industrial Development
Corporation forthwith, and
(ii) for a direction to the 3rd respondent to stop all
recovery proceedings against the petitioners’ units.
3. The petitioners in these writ petitions had borrowed certain
amounts from the 3rd respondent Corporation. They have defaulted payment
of the amount due to the Corporation. In view of the default committed by the
petitioners, the 3rd respondent has initiated revenue recovery proceedings
against the petitioners. It is at that stage, petitioners have approached the 3rd
respondent Corporation to give them the benefit under the OTS Scheme.
Their applications were rejected by the Corporation on the ground that they
W.A.Nos.244 & 241of 2007 – 2 –
have not deposited 10% of the outstanding balance amount as required under
the Scheme. For reasons best known, the petitioners do not question the
correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Corporation.
4. Now, in these Writ Appeals, the request of the appellants
before us is to direct the respondents to consider their applications for the
benefit of OTS Scheme without insisting on the payment of 10% of the
amounts outstanding.
5. In our opinion, the reliefs sought for by the appellants cannot
be granted by us. The Corporation has evolved a scheme for One Time
Settlement. Under that Scheme, certain conditions are imposed for availing the
benefits of One Time Settlement for defaulters of loan amounts due to the
Corporation. An autonomous body can definitely come out a scheme imposing
certain conditions. Unless and until the conditions so imposed are arbitrary or
illegal, this Court will not be in a position to direct that the respondents shall
not insist on the payment of 10% of the amounts outstanding. In that view of
the matter, the request of the appellants cannot be granted by us.
6. In so far as the second relief is concerned, the same also
cannot be granted by us for the reason that unless and until the appellants’
applications were favourably considered by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd
respondent cannot be directed to inform the 2nd respondent about the One
Time Settlement that has been arrived at by the Corporation. In view of the
above, we are of the opinion that the reliefs sought for cannot be granted.
7. Keeping in view all aspects of the matter, we are of the view
that the learned Single Judge has committed no error to call for our
interference and, therefore, the appeals require to be rejected and they are
rejected. Ordered accordingly.
W.A.Nos.244 & 241of 2007 – 3 –
Consequently, I.A.No.93 of 2007 in W.A.No.244 of 2007 and
I.A.No.92 of 2007 in W.A.No.241 of 2007 are also dismissed.
H.L.Dattu,
Chief Justice.
K.T.Sankaran,
Judge.
vku/DK.