P.J. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved of the coercive proceedings in respect of a loan transaction. According to the petitioner, some loan (to an extent of about Rs. 25,000/ -) was availed in the early 1990's, but the petitioner is not in a position to remember the particulars of the same. It is also stated that the petitioner had approached the concerned respondent for providing a statement of accounts and also for the particulars of loan. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the request made by the petitioner has been kept in the cold storage and the petitioner has been served with Exhibit P5 dated 11.06.2012 demanding a sum of Rs. 2,82,073.20, which made this petitioner to approach this Court. The second respondent has filed a statement pointing out that there is absolutely no basis for the contentions raised by the petitioner or in pleading ignorance of the vital facts and figures. Copies of the relevant proceedings have been produced along with the statement as Annexure R2(a) to R2(e). Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the petitioner was very much informed of the factual particulars, pursuant to which he had submitted Annexure R2(d) application for availing the benefit under the 'OTS scheme' and as such, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he is not aware of the particulars of the loan transaction.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner however submits that there is no dispute with regard to the submission of Annexure R2(d), but the same does not refer to the extent of liability as quantified therein, despite which the petitioner expressed his willingness to put an end to the issue by satisfying the amount, availing the benefit under the OTS scheme. It is not discernable from the materials produced, as to whether Annexure R2(d) application preferred by the petitioner for OTS scheme was considered favourably or whether the liability actually to be satisfied by the petitioner under OTS Scheme was let known to the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner was served with Exhibit P4 notice dated 13.02.2012 by the second respondent informing the petitioner to turn up immediately for extending the benefit of OTS. It is also seen that the petitioner submitted some submission on 15.03.2012, which was replied by the concerned respondent as per Exhibit P1 intimation dated 22.03.2012 alerting the petitioner to report immediately for considering the claim for OTS. This made the petitioner to send Exhibit P2 communication dated 02.04.2012 seeking for the particulars as to the amount due, conceding that, the petitioner is not having copies of any records as to the loan transaction and expressing the willingness to satisfy the due amount at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ - per month and also seeking for information as to the eligible extent of relief available to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits, that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P2 and pass appropriate orders, so as to extend the relief to the petitioner to the permissible extent. After hearing the both sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider Exhibit P2 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.