Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan K.V vs Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Ksfe, ... on 7 February, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 9696 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
RADHAKRISHNAN K.V.
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, KOPPARAKALEEKAL PO, KODUVINAL PO,
VALLIKKUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688
524.
BY ADV SRI.K.C.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KSFE, ALAPPUZHA
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., C.J.MANSION
BUILDING, NEAR KANNAN VARKEY BRIDGE, SEA VIEW WARD,
ALAPPUZHA.
2 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.
REGD. OFFICE, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 020.
3 SHRI.MUHAMMED HANEEFA
KALLELIL HOUSE, CHERAVALLI MURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN-690 502
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.)
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
SRI.BABU VARGHESE SR.
SRI.ALEXANDER.C.V., SC, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL
ENTERPRISES
SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.9696/2015 -2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P3 sale notice
proposing to sale of property belonging to the petitioner for recovery of an
amount of Rs.81,34,867/-.
2. The petitioner is a surety for certain transactions of the 3 rd
respondent with the Kerala State Financial Enterprises (KSFE). According to
the petitioner the property belonging to the petitioner was offered as security
only in respect of one chitty transaction of the 3 rd respondent and not in
respect of all the chitty transactions of the 3 rd respondent. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner is willing to clear off the liability in respect of the
chitty transaction in respect of which the property of the petitioner was
mortgaged and the property of the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for
recovery of the amounts due under other chitty transactions.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the KSFE would submit that
the contention taken on behalf of the petitioner that the property of the
petitioner was offered as security only in respect of one chitty transaction of
the 3rd respondent is absolutely incorrect. It is submitted that the 3 rd
respondent had a total of 23 chitty transactions with the KSFE and in respect
of each of these transactions the property of the petitioner has been offered as
security.
4. The learned Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit
filed by the 1st respondent and submits that the contention of the petitioner
that he had offered his property only in respect of one chitty transaction of the
3rd respondent does not appear to be correct. It is submitted with reference to
paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent that, as per the
records maintained by the KSFE the property of the petitioner was offered as
security for 4 transactions in respect of recovery proceedings had been
initiated by the 1st respondent.
5. This writ petition came up for admission before this court on
26-03-2015. Thereafter it was posted on 07-04-2015. The writ petition has
not been admitted. It came up for hearing before this court on 12-01-2024.
On which date it was adjourned to 19-01-2024. On 19-01-2024 it was
adjourned to 30-01-2024. On 30-01-2024 it was adjourned to 31-01-2024. On
31-01-2024 this court passed the following order:-
"At the request of the counsel for the petitioner, post on 05-02-2024 as
last chance.
No further adjournments will be granted under any circumstances."
On 05-02-2024 the matter has been adjourned to be listed today. Even today
there is no appearance for the petitioner. That apart, in the light of the
contentions taken by the learned counsel for the KSFE and in the light of the
averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, there
is no material before this court to suggest that the property of the petitioner
was offered as security only for one chitty transaction of the 3 rd respondent.
Further, a dispute of this nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and it is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9696/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT P1 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.7.2014 ISSUED BY
VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE.
EXT P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.6.2014 RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE KSFE.
EXT P2(A) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.6.2014 RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE KSFE.
EXT P2 (B) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.6.2014 RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE KSFE.
EXT P2 (C): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.5.2014 RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE KSFE.
EXT P3 : COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 11.2.2015 RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
