THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.7021 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in recovering Rs.1,932/- per month, instead of Rs.966/- per month, as unjust, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. A consequential direction is sought to direct the respondents to recover only Rs.966/- per month towards the loan of Rs.75,000/-. The petitioner applied for grant of Special House Building Advance for construction of a house in the year 1999 and, accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned of which an amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid to him towards the first instalment on 22.06.1999. The petitioner claims to have commenced construction thereafter; his grand mother died in the month of August 1999, necessitating the construction being stopped for about six months; when they again started construction in December, 1999, his younger brother died as a result of which his entire family suffered depression and, on the advice of elders, they had stopped construction as the site was not useful for construction. The petitioner claims to have approached the third respondent in the month of January, 2001, and to have requested that the dues be calculated to enable repayment in a lump sum. On being informed that the amount payable would be calculated at 24% per annum, and Rs.1,932/- would be recovered from his monthly salary, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, by order dated 16.04.2001, granted interim direction for recovery of Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.1,932/- per month as sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have complied with the said interim order, and to be paying Rs.1,000/- per month since the past nearly a decade. It is his case that the entire principal amount with interest at 14% per annum has already been paid, and the respondent-Corporation is not entitled to recover any further amount from him. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would submit that, while the principal of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at 14% per annum has already been recovered, penal interest of 10% per annum {i.e., 24% - 14%} is still due to be recovered. According to the learned Standing Counsel as the petitioner, despite availing the House Building Advance, had not constructed a building, he was liable to pay penal interest on the House Building Advance paid to him by the Corporation. Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that even this penal interest has already been paid. Since there is a dispute as to the extent of the amount repaid by the petitioner towards penal interest, I consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the third respondent who, on receipt of such representation, shall furnish details of the amount recovered, the amount adjusted towards the principal, the normal interest and the penal interest, and intimate the penal interest still due to the petitioner. On receipt of such intimation, the petitioner shall either pay the balance amount due in a lump sum or, with the permission of the third respondent, in reasonable monthly instalments. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of three {3} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 9th December 2010 RRB