The petitioner raises the short but all encompassing ground of limitation to assail the recovery initiated as per Ext.P1. The brief averments in the writ petition are that, a loan was availed allegedly by the father of the petitioner, however, admittedly in the name of the petitioner, for setting up a Small Scale Industry, in the year 1976. The loan amount having been availed on 29.3.1979, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps for recovery, in time, and were precluded from resorting to revenue recovery proceedings after 30 years, even if the debt is a crown debt; is the argument. Ext.P1 notice issued, is beyond 33 years and hence, the recovery is bad, pleads the petitioner.
2. The Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit, producing documents, controverting the ground of limitation. The additional second respondent avers in the counter affidavit, that two loans were availed off by the petitioner, under the Rural Industries Programme (R.I.P). The said loans were to be repaid after two years from the date of disbursement of loan amount with interest at the rate of 5.5% and penal interest at the rate of W.P.C. No. 29080 of 2014 -2-
1%. The loan of ₹ 14,000/- was disbursed on 31.3.1979 and a further loan of ₹ 50,000/- was disbursed on 29.3.1980.
3. The first loan, was secured by a hire agreement of the machinery purchased and the personal surety of the borrower. Ext.R2(a) is the hire agreement with respect to the purchase of machinery by which the petitioner was bound to repay the loan amount by way of hire charges as indicated in the agreement.
The loan of ₹ 50,000/- was secured, by mortgaging 15 cents of land in Survey No. 62/14B of Vadakkemury Village of Vaikom Taluk belonging to the petitioner. The mortgage deed is produced as Ext.R2(b). This, according to the Government, demolishes the ground of limitation raised by the petitioner.
4. Ext.R2(a) hire agreement, prescribes 10 years period, in which the petitioner has to re-pay an amount of ₹ 1,400/-; as annual rent, payable half yearly. Hence the limitation, with respect to the first loan, starts only in the year 1989. Again, with respect to the second loan, Ext.R2(b) mortgage deed indicates that the loan is to be paid by the mortgagor in 300 equal monthly instalments of ₹ 167.70/- each. This would make the period of loan 25 years from 29.3.1980, the date of disbursal of loan.
5. Further more, the State has a contention that the W.P.C. No. 29080 of 2014 -3-
petitioner has acknowledged the debt, after notice was issued as per Ext.R2(c). Ext.R2(c) is seen to have been issued with respect to the first loan of ₹ 14,000/- in the year 1991, intimating default and demanding satisfaction. The said letter, issued by the Government, was replied to by the petitioner, by Ext.R2(d) dated 1.8.1991, acknowledging the same as also seeking 15 days time to repay the said amount. Ext.R2(e) is again a letter addressed by the petitioner to the additional second respondent wherein the petitioner himself, admits, having remitted ₹ 4,000/-
and ₹ 1469/- by way of two challans bearing No. 1028 and 1029 of Vaikom Sub Treasury, on 22.8.1991.
6. In the teeth of the above facts put on record by the State, the ground of limitation cannot at all be sustained. It is to be specifically noticed that, none of the averments made in the counter affidavit or the documents produced by the State; have been disputed by the petitioner. The only conclusion hence, is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with costs.
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.
kp/-