IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27300 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR S.R. BHAVAN, MYLACHAL, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O. NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 501. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 501. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A. JAYASANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 27300 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging revenue recovery steps initiated against him at the behest of the respondents for realising arrears of a housing loan availed by him. It was contended that the amount demanded in Ext.P6 notice is not true and correct, as all the payments effected by the petitioner has not been given proper credit. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had already approached the respondents seeking benefits of the scheme for 'One Time Settlement' formulated by the State Government, and Ext.P11 is the decision taken by the 3rd respondent extending benefits under the Scheme. Petitioner is also disputing correctness of the calculations in Ext.P11 for the very same reason as mentioned above. 2. I am afraid, this Court cannot adjudicated upon correctness of the figures attended in the loan transaction and in the demand raised. If there is any mistake of non crediting of payments effected by the petitioner, it is for him to approach the appropriate authority among the respondents and to convince them with materials for rectifying such mistakes. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that if the petitioner makes any such attempt, the same will be looked into and appropriate rectification will be effected, if it found to be 2 WP(C) No. 27300/2010 genuine. 3. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent seeking rectification of mistake in the demand now raised, as well as in Ext.P11 order. Needless to say that the third respondent should furnish a copy of statement of accounts showing split-up details of all payments effected by the petitioner, in order to ascertain correctness of the amounts under demand. If any such approach is made by the petitioner within a period of one week from today, the same shall be considered by the third respondent and a decision thereof shall be taken and intimated to the petitioner without any further delay, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement before expiry of the cut-off date stipulated in the Scheme. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc