IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29395 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AMMINIKUTTY.K.C., PRASHANTH NIVAS, RAMAPURAM P.O., RAMAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.RAGHUNATHAN NAIR, PRASHANTH NIVAS, RAMAPURAM P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BRANCH OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J -------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.29395 of 2010-Y --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of amounts due in a housing loan account availed by the petitioner from the first respondent Board, is under challenge in this writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner had approached the first respondent seeking settlement of the account by availing benefits under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' formulated by the Government. Under Ext.P3 the said request was declined pointing out that the category in which the loan was availed will not fall within the purview of the Scheme. Under Ext.P5 the immovable property belonging to the petitioner was proclaimed for sale. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court was inclined to grant an interim order restraining the respondents from confirming sale if any conducted pursuant W.P(C) No.29395 of 2010-Y 2 to Ext.P5. But it is reported that no sale had taken steps on 24.9.2010, on the date proclaimed as per Ext.P5. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had already approached this Court challenging the recovery steps, during the year 2001, by filing O.P.No.26269 of 2001. Annexure R1(a) is the copy of the judgment of this Court in that writ petition. It is revealed that this Court had permitted the petitioner to remit the amount in a phased manner. As per directions contained in Ext.R1(a), the petitioner was insisted to make payment 1/3rd of the amount within two weeks from the date of judgment (5.9.2001) and to make payment of further 1/3rd on or before 30.10.2010. On remitting such amounts, the petitioner was given liberty to move before the first respondent and the first respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner for granting further instalment facility. It is stated that inspite of indulgence shown by this Court, the petitioner has not been remitted the first instalment. It is W.P(C) No.29395 of 2010-Y 3 further stated that after the lapse of more than eight years another writ petition was filed before this Court as W.P(C) No.23997 of 2010 seeking the very same relief against the recovery steps initiated. As per Ext.R1(b) judgment it is revealed that the petitioner had withdrawn that writ petition as not pressed, on 13.7.2010. 4. It is mentioned in the statement that the petitioner had availed the loan in question as early as in the year 1997. It is also mentioned that there was 'One Time Settlement Scheme' available till 30.9.2010, and the petitioner has not opted to avail the benefits under the said scheme. It is pointed out that as on 30.9.2010 the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,44,917/-. If the petitioner had availed the benefit of the One Time Settlement scheme, the amount could have been reduced to a sum of Rs.11,23,069/- only. Having failed to avail such opportunities the challenge now raised in the writ petition could not be entertained, is the contention. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of W.P(C) No.29395 of 2010-Y 4 the opinion that the writ petition could not be entertained in view of the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasions and this Court had permitted her pay off the liability in a phased manner. It is noticed that inspite of lapse of long period, the petitioner was successful in protracting the matter without effecting any payment, by adopting methods one after another. Therefore the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Government or any other appropriate authority seeking settlement of the arrears by way of waiver of any amount to the possible extent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab