The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the original of Ext.P-1 notice and quashing the same.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding respondents to allow the petitioner to clear entire liability by payment of the amount demanded as per Ext.P1 notice in monthly instalments as per Exhibit P2 and not to pursue any coercive steps till then.
(ii) Issue such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coercive proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondents are absolutely without any reason and hence the challenge. It is stated that the petitioner requires some more time to satisfy the instalments and that the petitioner does not intend to dispute the liability. The only relief pressed before this Court is to give a chance to effect the repayment by way of reasonable W.P.(C) No.26437 of 2014 2 instalments.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSFE points out that, admittedly the petitioner has approached the third respondent/Government, for enabling the petitioner to wipe off the liability by way of reasonable instalments. The said request was considered by the Government/third respondent, who issued Ext.P2 letter dated 29.01.2014, directing the petitioner to satisfy 25% of the liability on or before 01.03.2014 and the balance by way of '25' equal monthly installments.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that much leniency has already been extended by the third respondent with regard to the relief sought for and the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court available under Article 226 of the Constitution is not liable to be invoked to intercept the proceedings, because of the default. If the petitioner wants to have Ext.P2 varied or modified, it is for the petitioner to approach the third respondent for appropriate relief.
W.P.(C) No.26437 of 2014 3 In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law. However, this will not bar the way of the petitioner to avail the benefit of Ext.P2 order passed by the third respondent, if the default as on date, based on the said order, is rectified within 'two weeks' and continue to honour the commitment.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) sp