IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 679 of 2010(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32773/2008 Dated 02/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND,3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT IN WP(C) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.V.A.MOHAMED SALI,S/O.ASAMIYA LEEBA, AGED 57 YEARS,SKYLARK,THIRUVAMPADI HOUSING SCHEME, IRUMPUPALAM.P.O,ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY -HOUSING,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.679 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32773 OF 2008 (B) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010 O R D E R Writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 2nd of December, 2009 recording the submission of the review petitioner that the writ petitioner had a liability of Rs.3,16,348/-. On that basis, they were directed to disburse the balance due. Referring to Annexure A, it is stated that the figure mentioned in the Counter affidavit was not factually correct and that the total liability is Rs.5,66,658/-. 2. Now that according to the respondents, the liability due is as above, necessarily the figure indicated in the judgment is factually incorrect. Therefore review petition is disposed of clarifying that the respondents shall disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner after deducting whatever liability that is due from the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the liability indicated is factually incorrect. It is directed that if it is so, it will be open to the writ petitioner to challenge the liability that is now RP No.679/10 :2 : fixed. Review petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp