IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 7370 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ANTONY JOSEPH, KADAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. MOLLY ANTONY, KADAMTHITTIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.RAJEEV V.KURUP MR.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686002. 2. KERALA URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 5TH FLOOR, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACADU, TRIVANDRUM-695014. 3. VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,VADAVATHOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686010. ADV. MR.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R3 MRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJU MEENATTOOR FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7370 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: AGREEMENT DTD. 23.7.1994. EXT.P2: STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT. EXT.P3: LETTER DTD. 20.7.2000. EXT.P4: LETTER DTD. 30.1.2001 ISUED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5: COMPLAINT DTD. 13.2.2001. EXT.P6: LETTER DTD. 25.5.2001 ISSUED TO R3. EXT.P7: COMPLAINT DTD. 18.11.2010. EXT.P8: LETTER DTD. 25.8.2008 ISSUED TO R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ......... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.7370 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a direction commanding respondents 2 & 3 to close the loan transaction of the petitioners by accepting an amount of Rs.24,684/- with reasonable interest, if any due, by way of 147th instalment to 168th instalment @ Rs.1,122/- per month as per Ext.P1. 2. Petitioners jointly availed a loan of Rs.76981/- for construction of a house. The loan was availed from the Kottayam Development Authority. At present the 3rd respondent is exercising the functions of the Kottayam Development Authority. The Kottayam Development Authority was abolished during December, 1999. Petitioners submit that up to December, 1999, petitioners have paid 53 instalments amounting to Rs.59,466/-. It is submitted that the balance amount outstanding to be paid was Rs.69,144/- in 1999. Ext.P2 is the copy of the statement. As petitioners wanted to close the loan by paying the amount outstanding, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation on 30.1.2001 to the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the petitioners lodged a complaint before the learned Ombudsman on ::2:: W.P.(C).No.7370 Of 2011 13.2.2011. It is submitted that from December, 1999 till August, 2001, no agency was substituted or authorised to collect the instalments. 3. Petitioners submit that the 2nd respondent is demanding more than 1 Lakh rupees to close the transaction. According to the petitioners, only an amount of Rs.24,684/- is due. According to the 2nd respondent the amount payable is Rs.1,01,973/- as on 18.11.2010. The petitioners submit that non-closure of the loan account itself was due to the fault of the respondents. Petitioners submit that they have already paid an amount of Rs.1,63,812/- by way of 146 instalments @ Rs.1,122/- each and the balance amount payable is only Rs.24,684/-. 3. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the petitioners have remitted only 127 instalments and that the payment was made belatedly. It is also pointed out that if there is any default in remittance of the dues on the due dates, the petitioners have to pay penal interest @ 5% in addition to the normal rate of 15% and that as per the One Time Settlement, the company will be waiving the entire penal interest payable by the petitioners. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.7370 Of 2011 4. Petitioners' case is that they are liable to pay only Rs.24,684/- . The 2nd respondent in their statement maintained the stand that the amount payable is more than Rs.1 Lakh. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to assess and fix the actual amount due in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are willing to submit a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent. 5. In the event of the petitioners submitting a fresh representation within a period of three weeks from today, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders, fixing the liability of the petitioners. The matter shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The 2nd respondent shall also consider the waiver of penal interest. The petitioner is at liberty to produce the statement of account showing the details of remittance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-