A.V.Sujatha vs The District Industries Centre

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10012 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

A.V.Sujatha vs The District Industries Centre on 5 April, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
  FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 7553 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

          A.V.SUJATHA
          AGED 50 YEARS, W/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
          AIKKARA HOUSE, VAZHAMUTTAM (E) P.O.,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 647.


          BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
               SMT.S.INDU


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE
          KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 689 645.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

    2     THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
          REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHENCHERRY,
          PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          PRAMADAM/KONNI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY,
          PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
          BY ADV. VENUGOPAL V. (GP)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.7553/2016
                                         -:2:-




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed a margin money loan from the District Industries Centre, Kozhencherry, for starting a workshop.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing to health issues, the workshop of the petitioner had to be shut down. It is submitted that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated to recover the margin money of Rs.25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 11.5% (from 28-01-1997) after about 18 years. It is submitted that the revenue recovery proceedings are barred by limitation.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no question of the revenue recovery proceedings being barred by limitation, as admittedly, the amounts are amounts due to the Government and the amounts were disbursed on the basis of an agreement executed between the petitioner and the Government through the District Industries Centre, Kozhencherry. It is submitted that the limitation for recovery is therefore 30 years under Article 112 of the Schedule to the W.P.(C) No.7553/2016 -:3:- Limitation Act, and therefore, the recovery proceedings are not barred by limitation as contended by the petitioner.

4. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to pay off the principal amount in some instalments. It is submitted that considering the long delay in initiating the recovery proceedings, the interest on the amount may be waived.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a woman entrepreneur who could not successfully carry on the business for which the margin money was allotted owing to her health condition, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to pay off the principal amount in some instalments, making it clear that if the petitioner does not clear the liability as permitted, it will be open to the respondents to continue with the recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount together with interest thereon.

Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the petitioner shall pay the principal amount of W.P.(C) No.7553/2016 -:4:- Rs.25,000/- in three (03) equal monthly instalments. The 1 st instalment shall be paid on or before 30-04-2024. The 2 nd instalment shall be paid on or before 31-05-2024 and the 3 rd instalment shall be paid on or before 30-06-2024. If any of the one instalment is not paid, it will be open to the respondents to continue with the revenue recovery proceedings now initiated against the petitioner. Considering the fact that this judgment is issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent in any future case.

Sd/-

                                             GOPINATH P.
ats                                              JUDGE
 W.P.(C) No.7553/2016
                                    -:5:-




                        APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7553/2016

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1:            TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED      30.12.2015
                       ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2:            TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 OF

THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 3.12.2015.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPIES OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS ISSUED FROM KERALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.