IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11602 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.NIRMALA, THIYYAKANDICHALIL HOUSE, KANNADIPOI POST, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI M.R.NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 11602 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 4, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent. She had approached this court by filing WP(C) No.1493/2008. That was disposed of by judgment dated 23.1.2008. Taking note of the OTS scheme that was introduced by the respondent and that the same will be in force only till 31st March 2008, it was directed that it will be open to the petitioner to make an application for availing of the benefit of the scheme. 2. Despite the knowledge that the scheme was to expire on 31st March, 2008 and the judgment rendered on 23.1.2008, petitioner applied for the benefit of the scheme only on 6.3.2008. The Board considered the request and gave Ext.P9 reply dated 14th March, 2008 giving concession to the extent of more than Rs.5,21,000/-. The writ petition is now filed complaining that for complying with the offer made by the Board, the petitioner did not have enough time as the scheme was expiring on 31st of March, WP(C) 11602 of 2008 Page numbers 2008. 2. I do not find any merit in the submission now made. In my view, the petitioner herself is guilty of the delay and laches. As already noticed, the judgment was on 23rd January 2008 and, if the petitioner had any bona fides, she could have made an application sufficiently in time. This, the petitioner did not do, but applied only on 6.3.2008. 3. The learned standing counsel for the Board submits that the scheme expired on 31st March, 2008. 4. OTS is a matter of contract and this court will not be justified in interfering with the terms of such a contract and diluting the conditions that are imposed. However, if the Board is willing to give any extension, this judgment will not stand in the way. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-