IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1635 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMSUDEENKUNJU,AGED 47 YEARS VENGAYILPUTHENVEEDU, VENGA PO, SHASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD KARUNAGAPALLY BRANCH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) KUNNATHOOR TALUK SHASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. SHRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1635 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter to the 1st respondent. In this writ petition, he seeks a direction requiring respondents 1 & 2 to consider Ext.P2 proposal for One Time Settlement and to grant the benefits. 2. The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2 obtained instructions in the matter and now points out that this is the 4th writ petition that the petitioner has filed. It is stated that initially, the petitioner had filed O.P.No.1072/2001 and that this Court by judgment dated 10/01/2001 directed the respondents to grant instalment facility to discharge the liability. It is stated that twice the petitioner got extension of time for payment. But payment was not made. Subsequently, in 2002, the petitioner filed O.P.No.34843/2002, which was disposed of by judgment dated 31/08/2005 directing that he be given the benefit of OTS scheme, and that was not availed of. Again, he filed WP(C) No.23364/2006, which was disposed of by judgment dated 30/08/2006 directing that WP(C) No.1635/2009 -2- he be given OTS benefit, which also was not availed of. It is pointed out that it is without disclosing these facts, the present writ petition is filed with an innocuous prayer to consider Ext.P2 application for OTS and grant the benefits. 3. Having gone through the writ petition, I am satisfied that the submission made by the learned standing counsel is correct. The petitioner has not disclosed anything about the aforesaid writ petitions, and is seeking the relief for OTS, which was directed to be given twice. Therefore, for the suppression of material facts, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg