IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26123 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- GIREESAN @ SIVAKUMAR K., S/O. KRISHNAN, NADUKANDY HOUSE, NEAR TOURIST BUNGALOW, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KOZHIKODE DIVISION, CHAKKORATHKULAM, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 2. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.26123 of 2010-M ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a housing loan from the first respondent to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. Consequent to default committed in repayment, recovery steps were initiated and the second respondent had put for sale the immovable property which was mortgaged to secure the loan. It is challenging the steps initiated for sale of the immovable property that this writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the Government have introduced One Time Settlement (Ext.P3) for facilitating settlement of housing loans availed from the first respondent. As per Ext.P3, the Scheme is available till 30.9.2010. It is contended that, eventhough the petitioner attempted to wipe off the dues under the above said Scheme, the respondents 1 and 2 have declined such benefit and is proceeding with steps for sale. Hence this writ petition is filed. W.P(C) No.26123 of 2010-M 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, no sale had taken place as per the notification. It is also submitted that the petitioner will fall within the eligible category specified under the Scheme. But for availing such benefits the petitioner has to approach the appropriate authority under the first respondent, which has not been done, is the submission. 4. Having considered the fact that the petitioner is eligible for benefits under Ext.P3 Scheme, I find no reason why such benefit is not provided to him. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent or any appropriate authority under the first respondent concerned, to consider the loan account of the petitioner for settlement under Ext.P3 Scheme, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest, at any rate before 30.9.2010 and the same shall be intimated to the petitioner without any further delay. The authority concerned shall also grant reasonable time and instalment facility for payment of the settled amount. 5. Recovery steps now initiated shall be kept in abeyance till such time a decision in this regard is intimated to the petitioner. W.P(C) No.26123 of 2010-M 3 Needless to say that, if the petitioner fails in making payment of the settled amounts, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab