IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32226 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.SREENATH, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O UNUSKUTTY, THEKKEBHAGATH KADAYIL HOUSE, KANNANALLOOR P.O, KOLLAM- 691 576. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KOLLAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. PIN- 691 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM- 691 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM- 691 001. 4. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. BY R2 TO R4 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. P.A. REZIYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS WPC. NO. 32226/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/8/2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 22643/2006. P3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR RECEIPT OF MONEY DATED 22/9/2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3/8/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/5/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO. 464/2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 31.10.2011. P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AS S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32226 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging proceedings for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent Kollam Development Authority. The petitioner submits that in respect of the matter, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and obtained Ext.P5 order, which has not been implemented by the Kollam Development Authority. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 till such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to reschedule the loan account of the petitioner and permit her to repay the outstanding dues under one time settlement in convenient monthly instalments” 2. This writ petition was admitted on 3.12.2011 and W.P.(C)No.32226/11 2 notice was taken out by special messenger to the 1st respondent. Notice was served. That matter again came up before me on 8.12.2011. There was no appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent on that day. Therefore, I adjourned the matter for another week. It is pursuant to the same, the writ petition is coming up before me today. Today also, none appears for the 1st respondent. Therefore, I am constrained to dispose of this writ petition in their absence. 3. I do not think that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to deal with the matters relating to the Kollam Development Authority. Of course, at present, the Kollam Development Authority is run by the Kollam Corporation. But, the powers exercised by the Kollam Corporation in respect of the Kollam Development Authority are not the functions under the Kerala Municipalities Act. The Ombudsman would get jurisdiction only to deal with the matters under the Kerala Municipalities Act. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner can claim implementation of Ext.P5 order, which is without jurisdiction. 4. A similar question has been considered by me in W.P.(C) No.15108/2007, in which I had passed the following judgment. W.P.(C)No.32226/11 3 “The 2nd respondent, the Kollam Development Authority, advanced a housing loan to the petitioner as per a scheme for financial assistance to the weaker sections of the society. The petitioner has been paying the instalment amounts. Although occassionally belatedly, out of the total 168 instalments, the petitioner has already paid 105 instalments. The balance principal amount was only Rs.1,20,000/-. The petitioner has subsequently paid Rs.1,00,000/-. Now the petitioner is being asked to pay a further amount of Rs.1,27,890/-. The petitioner is now disputing this statement of accounts of the 2nd respondent. According to him, even going by the calculations given by the 2nd respondent, the total balance amount due would be only Rs.59,036/-. 2. With the help of statement of accounts, the 2nd respondent would dispute the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The calculation statement of the 2nd respondent itself makes a strange reading. That is not in accordance with the ordinary principles of accounting and I was surprised to find that in the statement of accounts, the rate of penal interest was shown as 5 per cent. The loan is supposed to be given as per a scheme for financial assistance to weaker sections of the society. Even for ordinary loans, banks recover only 2.5 per cent penal interest. But the 2nd respondent has fixed the penal interest at 5 per cent. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that it is as per the Government policy at that time. Whether it is Government policy or not, five per cent penal interest in addition to the interest of 15 per cent is certainly usurious. Since this loan is intended for weaker sections of the society, I am of opinion that the 5 per cent penal interest should be excluded. The petitioner has agreed to pay the balance amount without penal interest. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall serve a demand notice on the petitioner excluding the penal interest from the statement of accounts filed in W.P.(C)No.32226/11 4 the Court and the petitioner shall pay that amount within one month from the date of receipt of the notice. 5. I am of opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as given in that writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall serve a demand notice on the petitioner excluding penal interest for the amount due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent. The petitioner shall pay that amount in twelve equal monthly instalments starting from 1.2.2012. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one of the instalments, it would be open to respondents 1 to 3 to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.32226/11 5 W.P.(C)No.32226/11 6