IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30267 of 2010(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- LISSY RAJAN, W/O RAJAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, 2ND MILE, PALLIVAASAL POST, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RR CELL KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THODUPUZHA DISTRICT OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. R1 TO R3 ADV. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.30267 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had availed a housing loan from the respondent Board in the year 1998. Default was committed and according to the petitioner, pursuant to One Time Settlement Scheme, payments were made and thus the liability has been discharged. 2. It is her case that despite the above, the loan account is not closed by the respondents. It is complaining of the above, this writ petition has been filed. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondents detailing the transactions between the Board and the petitioner. According to the Board, despite the payments so far made, as on 30.9.2010, an amount of Rs.85,168/- was remaining outstanding. Thus, while the petitioner submits that liability has been discharged, the respondents deny the averments and submits that amounts are still outstanding. 4. In view of the disputed questions that are arising for consideration, this Court will not be justified W.P (C) No.30267 of 2010 2 in issuing any directions to the respondents to close the account of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now One Time Settlement Scheme has been introduced by the respondents by extending the period of the existing scheme. If that be so, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to seek the benefit thereof, in which event, her claim will be considered, in accordance with law.' Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma