IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 12736 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.C.SAMUEL, KAKKANATTIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., THANNIMMOODU, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD IDUKKI DIVISION, KATTAPPANA. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC, KSHB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12736/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPYOF THE RECEIPT NO.197630 DT 9.8.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF the RECEIPT NO.375239 DT 29.2.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.203130 DT 9.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.358527 DT 15.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.272028 DT 9.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.M1-10 DT 20.4.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.Re/74/IDK/07 DT 13.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.M.1-10 DT 8.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.3.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 12736 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition what is challenged by the petitioner is Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a demand issued at the instance of the respondents demanding an amount of Rs.7,05,984/- along with other charges. Admittedly, the loan was availed by the petitioner and default was committed. If that be so, I cannot find anything irregular with the action that has been initiated. 2. Irrespective of this, petitioner now contends that it was on account of the financial constraints that default was committed and on that basis, the petitioner is seeking instalment facility to discharge the liability. From the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents, it was clear that their endeavour is more to realise the dues rather than pursuing the coercive action. 3. Taking into account the submissions made as above, I am inclined to grant the petitioner an opportunity to pay off the liability in instalments. 4. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner will pay the amount WPC 12736/08 :2 : due to the respondents in 14 instalments. The first of which will be payable before 5th of September, 2008 and the subsequent instalments on or before 5th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that in case petitioner commits default in paying the amount as above, the respondents will be free to continue the proceedings that they have already initiated without any further notice. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp