IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 26683 of 2010(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- LOUIS D'SOUZA, AGED 62, S/O.MODTHIN D'SOUZA, SUNGATHAKATTA.P.O., VORKADY, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 614. 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR & CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 614. 3. ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KASARAGOD DIVISION, KASARAGOD - 671 543. 4. AUTHORISED OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KASARAGOD DIVISION, KASARAGOD - 671 543. R1-4 ADV. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, J ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26683 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging the Revenue Recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 notices. The amount sought to be realized pertains to arrears in a housing loan account availed by the petitioner from the Ist respondent board. In a statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it is mentioned that the loan in question was availed in the year 1997 and the loan account is in chronic default. It is enumerated that notices send on various occasions were not responded by the petitioner. It is also mentioned that considerable reduction offered by the respondent board, permitting 'one time settlement', has not been availed by the petitioner and the scheme has already expired on 30.09.2010. 2. Even though no legally tenable ground was raised against the recovery steps, as a gesture of indulgence, this court granted an interim stay with respect to further W.P.(C) No.26683/2010 2 coercive steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) within three weeks from 08.10.2010. 3. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has not received any instruction from the petitioner regarding compliance of the condition. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent board submitted that the petitioner has not effected payment of the amount stipulated in the interim order. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL RAHIM JUDGE. ss/- //True Copy// P.A to Judge