K.K.Hameed vs The Kerala Khadi And Village Industries

Kerala High Court

K.K.Hameed vs The Kerala Khadi And Village Industries on 20 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
   MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 17808 OF 2011
PETITIONER:

         K.K.HAMEED
         KANNAMKULANGARA HOUSE, AYAMKULAM.P.O.,, THAVANUR-
         679594, MALAPPURAM.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
         SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
         BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2    THE DIRECTOR KHADI AND VILLAGE
         INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    3    THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR REVENUE
         RECOVERY), PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.R.S.HARI KUMAR ,SC,KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE
         INDUSTRIES B
         GOVERNMENT PLEADER
         SRI.K.P.HARISHSCKERALA KHADI BOARD
         SRI.R.S.HARI KUMAR SCKERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE
         INDUSTRIES B


OTHER PRESENT:

         SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.17808/2011                    2

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed financial assistance from the 1st respondent for starting an oil mill. According to the petitioner, for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the business of the petitioner did not take off and now proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of margin money loan availed from the 1st respondent together with interest due thereon. The petitioner has been served with Ext.P2 notice under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 application for One Time Settlement in terms of a Scheme promulgated by the Government. It is the case of the petitioner that, though Ext.P3 application was submitted as early as on 28.9.2009, without considering the same, Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the petitioner had never approached the 1st respondent for One Time Settlement. It is submitted that, earlier, there was a Scheme for One Time Settlement under which the petitioner was entitled to a waiver of penal interest provided the entire amounts were paid in lump W.P.(C)No.17808/2011 3 sum on or before 31.3.2012. It is submitted that even today the 1 st respondent is willing to waive the penal interest on the petitioner remitting the balance amount due from the petitioner. It is submitted that Ext.P3 application can be considered by the 1 st respondent.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All eligible benefits under any Scheme for One Time Settlement shall be extended to the petitioner. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, proceedings for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner shall remain suspended. If, on consideration of Ext.P3, any benefit is granted to the petitioner and still the petitioner fails to remit the amounts due, the Recovery proceedings may continue against the petitioner.

sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.17808/2011 4 APPENDIX EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE MALABAR INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES, KOZHIKODE.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 21-06-2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-09-2009 SUBMITTED TO THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.