The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:
“1. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to quash Exhibit-P.1 sale notice.
2. To issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to effectively consider the Exhibit-P.2 application for time to pay off the amounts, within a period fixed by this Honorable Court.”
2. The petitioners who are the subscribers of Chitties in Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (KSFE) have approached this Court for directing the respondents to effectively consider Ext.P2 application, by granting time to pay off the amounts due within a period to be fixed by this Court and to keep the coercive proceedings in abeyance till such time.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent pointing out the actual facts and figures particularly, that the petitioners do not deserve any sympathy in so far, as they have already approached the Government thrice and obtained interim orders enabling them to liquidate the liability in a phased manner. It was only on the continued default on the part of the petitioners that the respondents are constrained to pursue further proceedings, which is perfectly within the four walls of law and not assailable under the circumstances. Paragraph 5 of the statement as aforesaid reads as follows:
“Apart from the aforesaid facts it is to be stated that the petitioners had earlier approached the Government in three occasions when R.R. proceedings were initiated. The government in the 1st instance stayed the R.R.proceedings on condition that the petitioners shall remit Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 30/09/2012 and to remit the balance in 20 equal monthly instalments as per the order dtd. 17/11/12. Since the direction so passed was not complied, again R.R. Proceedings were initiated. Then the petitioners approached the Government and obtained a second stay order as per which the petitioners were directed to remit 25% on or before 17/12/2012 and to remit the balance dues in 25 equated monthly instalments. The petitioner filed to comply the said condition and this has caused the 2nd respondent to initiate R.R. proceedings for the 3rd occasion. This time the said proceedings were further stayed by the Government for the 3rd time on condition that the petitioners shall remit 10% of the principal amount on or before 17/01/2013 and the balance in 50 equal monthly instalments. This time the petitioners remitted Rs.86,000/- on 17/01/2013 (ie; 10% of the principal amount) but failed to remit the subsequent monthly instalments. This had resulted the 2nd respondent to proceed against the petitioners under the R.R.Act for the 4th time and the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court. This had caused to post- pone the sale shown in Ext.P1. Since there was no stay of Ext.P1 the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 sale notice produced along with I.A.No.14004/2014. However the sale could not be conducted since the officer who has to conduct the sale was on leave on 17/10/2014. Over and above all that is stated already; the property offered as security was attached as per the order in O.S.No.870 of 2009 on the files of the Sub Court, Thrissur as per order dated 22/07/2009 and the said order is still in force.”
4. After hearing both the sides and also considering the course pursued by the Government granting relief to the petitioners, enabling them to satisfy 10% of the due amount on or before 17.01.2013 and the balance amount to be paid by way of 50 equal monthly instalments and since it is conceded that the petitioners have remitted a sum of `86,000/- on 17.01.2013 towards the 10% of the principal amount, the petitioners were bound to effect the balance amount as per instalments granted by the Government, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay.
5. However, considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are granted one month's time to clear the entire 'overdue' instalments granted by the Government and to avail the benefit of interim stay satisfying the liability by way of the future instalments. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if any single default is committed with regard to the satisfaction of the 'overdue' as above, it will be open for the respondent to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn