IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 5686 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.V.SATHYARAJAN, AGED 68, S/O.LATE VELUTHA PANICKER, RESIDING AT JENMA PARAMPIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.1/80, PONJIKKARA, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR(CHERTHALA) SMT.LAYA FRANCIS SRI.KURIAKOSE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., NEW DELHI. 4. THE MINISTER FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA R3 BY SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 5686/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.02 IN OP NO.18331/02. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.1.06 IN WPC: 3381/05. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/APPLICATION DATED 23.3.06. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.3.06. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 06.04.06. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.10.05. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.05.06 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.05.06 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.05.06 BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 29.06.06. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE INISTERS(LSG) WITH A COVERING LETTER DATED 04.09.07. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.07.07 DENYING CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.07 IN WPC : 3243507. EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.1.08 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R2(A) : TRUE COPY OF GO(Rt) NO.2005/05/LSG DATED 17.05.05. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 5686 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed of a loan from the 2nd respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority for the purpose of construction of a house. He defaulted repayment of the same. As per the contract the petitioner was liable to pay the outstanding amounts under the law with stipulated interest and penal interest for non-payment within time. Petitioner did not pay the amounts within time. While so, the Government issued Ext.P6 circular to the effect that if the borrowers pay amounts due to the Development authorities in respect of loan amounts taken, within three months from the date of Ext.P6 circular, which is dated 15.10.05, the borrowers would be absolved from the liability to pay penal interest. The petitioner did not pay the balance amount due within three months as per Ext.P6 also. Thereafter the GCDA took coercive proceedings for recovery. The petitioner filed WP(C) No.32435/07 in which by Ext.P3 judgment this Court directed the GCDA to consider the petitioner’s representation in this regard. Thereafter the GCDA considered the representation of the petitioner WPC : 5686/08 -:2:- and held that since the petitioner did not pay the amounts as per the One Time Settlement Scheme also, the penal interest cannot be waved but taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, 50% of penal interest was reduced. 2. Petitioner of course paid entire amounts to avoid accumulation of future interest. Petitioner now seeks refund of the penal interest paid by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the fixation of three months time in Ext.P6 is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner and the petitioner should have been given sufficient time to pay as per Ext.P6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of opinion that there is no question of violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner. Admittedly, he is a defaulter of loan amounts to the GCDA. Ext.P6 scheme is only concession extended to the petitioner. For availing of that benefit the petitioner has to comply with the conditions, namely payment of the entire amount within three months. If the petitioner had not paid the amounts within three months, he cannot claim that benefit. Fixation of three months is not WPC : 5686/08 -:3:- arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore there is no question of violation of fundamental right of the petitioner. I find that the GCDA was magnanimous enough to reduce 50% of the penal interest and the petitioner cannot aspire for any further relief in the matter. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb