IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 296 of 2011(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MATHEW THAYYIL, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 58 YEARS,CHERUPARA, THIMIRI P.O. THIMIRI AMSOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH, SRI. V.T. MADHAVANUNNI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN – 695 001 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KANNUR DIVISION, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR -670 002. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (FOR R.R.) KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,S.C.K.S.H.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.296 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against recovery steps initiated at the behest of respondents 1 and 2, to realise amounts due under a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent. The loan in question was availed in the year 1996. According to the petitioner the house in question was totally destructed due to a 'lightning accident' occurred on 6.11.2001. The petitioner alleges that there was failure on the part of the 2nd respondent in keeping the insurance policy promptly renewed, which in turn has resulted in depriving legitimate rights of the petitioner to recover compensation from the Insurance Department. His further contention is that the petitioner is not liable for payment of any amount of interest since 6.11.2001 onwards, due to the total destruction of the building in question. 2. Considering the contentions raised as above, I am not inclined to interfere with the recovery steps in any manner. Merely raising an allegation that there was failure on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in renewing the insurance policy, the petitioner is not entitled to seek exoneration from liability for payment of amounts due under the loan account. So also, I am W.P.(C).296/11 -2- not impressed with the argument that he is not liable for payment of interest from the date of the alleged destruction of the building. 3. However, as a gesture of indulgence, an interim stay was granted by this court on 10.1.2011 subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 31.1.2011. It is conceded that the petitioner had failed to comply with the stipulation. 4. Under the above circumstances I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition any further. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 5. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach respondents 1 and 2 seeking settlement of the loan account by availing benefits as provided under the 'One Time Settlement' scheme formulated by the State Government for the purpose of settlement of loans availed from the 1st respondent Board. On the alternative, the petitioner is also at liberty to approach respondents 1 and 2 seeking payment of the amounts due in a phased manner. It is made clear that despite dismissal of this writ petition, if any such approach is made, it is left open to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the same and to take appropriate decision. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb