IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 604 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1532/2008 Dated 14/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BRANCH OFFICE, THIRUVAMPADY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (R.R.) NO.III, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- V. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAGAMADAM, PALA P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI. M.C. JOHN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 604 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J.: This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1532 of 2008 dated 14th January, 2008. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has not done anything except directing the appellant-Housing Board to reconsider the claim of the petitioner with reference to Ext.P6 notice/notification issued by the Housing Board itself. 2. Petitioner had availed a housing loan from the Housing Board to the tune of Rupees Three Lakhs. He had committed default in paying the entire loan amount. The petitioner had made a request for one time settlement. His request was considered and petitioner was given time till 31.3.2008 to settle the amount under the One Time Settlement Scheme, failing which the property would be put to sale in auction. By Ext.P7 order, the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.5,90,745/- to settle the entire loan liability. 3. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the matter, has noticed that Ext.P7 quantification is done by the Housing Board without prior notice to the petitioner and without properly considering the category to which the petitioner comes as reflected in Ext.P6 notice/notification issued by the Housing Board itself. 4. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the financial constrains pleaded by the petitioner and further taking into consideration that the petitioner belongs to Pulluva community, which is characterised as a Scheduled WA. 604/2008. 2 Caste community, has directed the respondents to reconsider Ext.P7 order passed by them, wherein they have quantified the loan liability of the petitioner. 5. Having gone through the order passed by the learned Single judge, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error whatsoever. The learned Judge has only directed the respondents to re-quantify the liability of the petitioner after taking into consideration Ext.P6 notice/notification issued by the Housing Board. Normally this court would not interfere with the remand orders passed by the learned Single Judges, unless the said order is either perverse or capricious. We do not see any perversity or infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, interference with the said order is not called for. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.