Disposed

N.Kanakaraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2014WP(C)/2937/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging loan liability and collection charges by staying coercive steps and permitting the petitioner to avail the OTS facility to settle the dues by a specific date, leaving all other disputed issues open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file application for OTS facility to settle liability by depositing Rs.4,21,677/- by 30.06.2014; coercive steps kept in abeyance; other issues left open.

N.Kanakaraj Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/28TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 2937 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.KANAKARAJ,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. NESAN, RESIDING AT PARAYANVILA VEEDU, VIRALI, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.NIKHIL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM HOUSING UNIT, SHANTHINAGAR- 695 001.

¶12

3. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121.

¶13

4. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH, BALARAMAPURAM - 695 501.

¶14

5. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121.

¶15

*ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED:

¶16

R6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULATHUR, UCHAKKADA PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

**(ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 18/03/2014 IN IA NO.4154/2014)*

¶18

R1,R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.RAFEEK R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Kss

¶21

WP(C).No. 2937 of 2014 (N)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-08-2013. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-01-2013. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-01-2013. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-12-2013. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-01-2014. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-01-2014. EXHIBIT P7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.0743239. EXHIBIT P7(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.0941109. EXHIBIT P7(c): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.093320. EXHIBIT P7(d): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.0502919. EXHIBIT P7(e): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.0551389. EXHIBIT P7(f): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.0955580. EXHIBIT P7(g): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.0022252. EXHIBIT P7(h): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.0045819.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXHIBIT R2(a): THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT SHOWING THE DEDUCTION OF THE REMITTANCES MADE BY THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.2937 of 2014

¶32

Dated this the 19^th March, 2014

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶35

prayers:

¶36

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the files leading to Exhibit P6 and quashing the same.

¶37

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 4^th respondent to accept the monthly instalments from the petitioner and to credit the same to Loan Account No.NTA./7/96/HIG in terms with the calculations in Exhibit P4 and directions in Exhibit P5.

¶38

And

¶39

iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances.

¶40

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 15.02.2014, the writ petition was admitted also granting interim stay subject to satisfaction of Rs.One lakh, which

¶41

is stated as complied with. The petitioner challenges the extent of liability on various grounds with reference to the pleadings and materials on record. It is stated that exorbitant amount is

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C)No.2937 of 2014

¶44

sought to be collected from the petitioner by way of interest and collection charges. The petitioner has further grievance that inspite of satisfaction of various payments, the same has been given credit to only much belatedly, causing much loss to the petitioner .

¶45

During pendency of the proceedings , it was brought to the notice of this Court, that an OTS facility has already been declared by the Government and the petitioner wants to settle the liability once and for all. The amount to be satisfied on or before 30.06.2014 is Rs.4,21,677/- as against the figure in Ext.P4.

¶46

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Kerala State Housing Board submits that in connection with the declaration of OTS on an earlier instance , the payments effected by the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act , which were originally to be credited against the interest portion, were sought to be credited directly to the account; and such a course was proposed to be pursued so as to bring down the liability to the aforesaid extent of Rs. 4,21,677/- . If the petitioner does not intend to satisfy the liability availing the

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C)No.2937 of 2014

¶49

benefit under OTS, the amount remitted earlier have to be adjusted against the interest portion and the further payments to

¶50

be effected by the petitioner are also to be appropriated accordingly, ie. firstly against the interest portion and then, to the principle amount. If such a course is adopted, the total liability will be more than Rs.17 lakhs, submits the standing Counsel.

¶51

After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is set at liberty to file an application for OTS facility. If the petitioner chooses to close the loan account, by availing the OTS facility, it is open for the petitioner to satisfy the entire liability by depositing a sum of Rs.4,21,677/- on or before 30.06.2014. Subject to this, the coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. All the disputed issues are left open.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶54

N.Kanakaraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kanakaraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varkey Joseph Vs Sooraj

Teena Antony Vs State of Kerala

Shoukath Ali Vs Himanshu Kumar Rai

M/S Kannan Enterprises Vs State Bank of India

Kunhikannan Paleri Vs the Authorised Recovery Officer, Payyannur Co-Operative Town Bank Ltd.

K.Ramachandran Vs Chief Manager, State Bank of India