IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30854 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ CHACKO JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, KOVVAL STORE JUNCTION, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY MR.JAWAHAR JOSE. RESPONDENT : -------------------- KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. MR.A.JAYASANKAR, STANDING COUNCIL FOR KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Board under the relevant provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for realization of the amount stated as due from him under a loan transaction. 2. It is stated that the petitioner had availed a 'housing loan' of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent in the year 1996 by creating equitable mortgage over the property in question. It is also conceded in the Writ Petition that the re-payment could not be effected on time, because of the sudden down fall in the business, which made the respondent to proceed with further steps. The further contention of the petitioner in para 4 of the Writ Petition is that even though he had approached the Board for seeking the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' with the intention to settle the loan account, the respondent was adamant in not extending the benefit under the One Time Settlement or by other schemes and stated that W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 2 the schemes were not applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, a specific prayer has been incorporated in the Writ Petition to direct the respondent to provide the benefit of One Time Settlement or similar benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner's challenge is also with regard to the rate of interest, being raised by the respondent contrary to the terms of the rules and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out the sequence of events right from the beginning, asserting that the steps taken by the respondent including the rate of interest demanded and sought to be realized is perfectly within the four walls of the law and never contrary to the terms and agreement or any guidelines. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent also brought to the notice of this Court, that the loan was sanctioned to the petitioner under the 'higher income group' category, considering his re-paying capacity on the basis of the income certificate produced by him at the time of availing the loan. Despite this, the petitioner was not at all anxious to have the loan account regularized and settled, but continues to be a defaulter for nearly 1 ½ decades. It is W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 3 further brought to the notice of this Court vide para 8 of the counter affidavit that there was One Time Settlement in the Board from 7.2.2004 to 31.3.2008 and intimation was sent to the petitioner intimating the details of the said scheme, vide notices dtd.15.3.2004, 19.6.2004, 22.12.2004, 29.1.2005, 25.2.2005, 15.12.2006. Besides that, personal contact was also made over Telephone. It is also stated that officers of the Board had visited the petitioner at his residence for intimating the benefit of One Time Settlement; in spite of which, there was no attempt from the part of the petitioner in clearing the liability by availing the benefit of One Time Settlement. It is specifically pointed out that as on 31.12.2009, the petitioner is liable to pay more than Rs.10,61,32/- for closing the loan account. 5. Being confronted with the factual position as above, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the benefit of One Time Settlement was not communicated over telephone as stated in para 8; however, adding that the petitioner could not avail the benefit under the One Time Settlement, since he was not having the amount with him. As noted above, it is also stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that the officers of the respondent Board had W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 4 personally visited the petitioner at his residence intimating the benefit of One Time Settlement, which plea has not been chosen to be denied by the petitioner. It is without any reference to the said opportunity given and intimation already served on the petitioner, the petitioner has mentioned in para 4 of the Writ Petition that, even though the petitioner had approached the respondent Board for availing the benefit of One Time Settlement, the benefit thereunder was being denied by the respondent; which can't be true at all. 6. With regard to the rate of interest charged by the respondent, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that the agreed rate of interest was brought down to 15.5% from the year 2003, in view of the relevant circulars issued by the Board. Similar course is stated as pursued with regard to the payment of 'default interest' as well. The challenge raised by the petitioner as to the contravention in respect of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is not supported by any materials. More so, the Reserve Bank of India is not included in the party array. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case, to interfere with the cause of action projected by the W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 5 petitioner. The Writ Petition fails and the conduct being pursued by the petitioner is deprecated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court abstains from ordering cost. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab