V.Y.Sreekumar vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4855 of 2004(C)


1. V.Y.SREEKUMAR, N.V.BUNGALOW, VALIAVAZHI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :07/07/2009

 O R D E R
                 C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                 --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.C. NO. 4855 OF 2004
                 --------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner has availed loan from the second respondent for

purchase of car. According to the petitioner, second respondent

charged exhorbitant interest and collected the same. Petitioner filed a

complaint before the Lok Ayukta which got investigation done through

it’s agency and based on report Lok Ayukta disposed of the complaint

vide Ext.P6 order. Petitioner has approached this Court now claiming

refund of specified sum of Rs. 75,540/- with 12 per cent interest. On

going through order of the Lok Ayukta I do not think Lok Ayukta has

entered any finding about eligibility for refund. Government Pleader

submitted that interest was charged because petitioner committed

default in payment of instalments. I do not think there is any scope for

this Court deciding the correctness or legality of the interest charged on

the petitioner because matter is already concluded by Ext.P6 order of

the Lok Ayukta. In fact findings of the Lok Ayukta are in favour of the

petitioner and respondents have not challenged the same. In the

2

circumstances, all what the petitioner can seek is the enforcement of the

order of the Lok Ayukta that is consideration of the matter by the

Board of Directors of the second respondent in the light of the findings

of the Lok Ayukta. I therefore dispose of the Writ Petition directing

the second respondent to implement the order of the Lok Ayukta and

issue communication to the petitioner. Before final orders are passed,

the Board should communicate it’s proposal to the petitioner and

petitioner should be given an opportunity to file a statement on the

proposal.

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk

3