IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 589 of 2010 ------------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 30854/2009 DATED 10/02/2010 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- CHACKO JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, KOVVAL STORE JUNCTION, KANHANGAD SOUTH.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A. JAYASANKAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.589 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th February, 2010, the unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30854 of 2009 has preferred the present writ appeal. 2. The writ petition itself was filed aggrieved by certain proceedings initiated by the respondent Kerala State Housing Board under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of certain amounts due from the appellant herein to the respondent Housing Board. 3. Admittedly, the appellant availed of a loan of Rupees two lakhs in the year 1996 from the Kerala State Housing Board by creating an equitable mortgage over the property. It is also an admitted fact that the said amount was agreed to be repaid along with interest in instalments spread over a period of 15 years. It is W.A. No589 of 2010 . - 2 - also an admitted fact that so far the appellant has paid only an amount of Rs.75,000/-. 4. It is in the abovementioned background that proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act were initiated against the appellant which were challenged by the appellant on various counts, like that the appellant is not given the benefit of one time settlement scheme which according to the appellant is available to him under certain guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant has also raised certain disputes regarding the rate of interest chargeable from the appellant while computing the amount due from him. 5. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal found that, in fact, the one time settlement facility was offered to the appellant, but he did not avail the same. Coming to the claim of the appellant that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of certain guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the learned Judge recorded a finding that except raising the plea no materials in support of the plea were produced before the W.A. No589 of 2010 . - 3 - learned Judge. The learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. 6. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal at the admission stage. It is open to the appellant to avail such remedies which are available to him under law, if so advised. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge vns