K PARAMESWARAKURUP Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had availed a loan from the second respondent in the year 1997, for starting the Hollow Bricks Manufacturing Industry. Subsequently, the petitioner turned to be a chronic defaulter, which made the second respondent to proceed against the petitioner by way of appropriate steps, which however was sought to be intercepted by filing O. P. No. 38227 of 2002, where interference was declined, but for giving some breathing time to the petitioner to approach the respondent- Board for redressal of his grievances; simultaneously directing to defer the coercive steps for a period of three months, provided the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. Five lakhs within one month as specified therein. Despite the specific direction, as above, nothing was paid from the part of the petitioner, which made the respondent- Board to proceed against the petitioner with further steps. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W. P (C)18012 of 2008, where the earlier turn of events was specifically referred to and the said Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the said verdict, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W. A. No. 242 of 2009, which culminated in Ext. P4 verdict.

(2.) AS observed by the Division Bench of this Court, the only contention then projected by the petitioner before the Division Bench was to have his application for OTS considered by the Board, which alone was granted by this court, while passing the verdict on 12. 02. 2009. It is without any regard to the course and proceedings still date, the petitioner has now chosen to approach this Court again with the present Writ Petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the case of the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy at all, particularly when after making use of the money, he constructed some buildings and that the said buildings have been let out to strangers generating income by way of rent. This fact is also stated as mentioned in the earlier verdict passed by this Court in O. P. No. 38227 of 2002 (paragraph No. 5 ). Considering the facts and circumstances, absolutely no interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.