IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 1726 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20712/2008 DATED 31-7-2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ V.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NAGAMADAM, PELA, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BRANCH OFFICE, THIRUVAMPADY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),NO.III, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.JAYASANKAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1726 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The appellant had challenged Ext.P8 order passed by respondent No.1- Kerala State Housing Board, before the learned Single Judge, contending inter alia that the benefits available under the relevant Housing Loan Scheme had not been extended to him. 2. The learned Single Judge repelled the said contention and held that in so far as the appellant had expressly agreed to the terms applicable to the HIG Scheme, he cannot now turn round and say that he is not liable to be governed by the terms and conditions under the said Scheme. 3. In an earlier round of litigation this Court had directed the Board to consider the grievance of the appellant after affording him another opportunity to be heard. It was pursuant to the above direction, Ext.P8 order was passed by respondent No.1. 4. We have carefully perused Ext.P8 order. Respondent No.1 had referred to the relevant clauses in the Scheme in question, and W.A.No.1726/2008 -2- found that the contentions now raised by the appellant are totally untenable. It was also noticed by respondent No.1 that the Housing Board had extended all the benefits available to all the loanees including the appellant as and when the rate of interest had been reduced by the Board. Admittedly the appellant had availed of the loan under the High Income Group (HIG) Scheme in 1995 undertaking to repay the same as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. It is also beyond controversy that the appellant had been offered substantial reduction under the One Time Settlement Scheme. 5. The scope of interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very narrow and limited especially when it comes to an agreement between a Statutory Corporation and a debtor. In U.P.Financial Corporation Vs. M/s.Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd and Others (AIR 1993 SC 1435) their Lordships have held thus: “In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation, or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e., unreasonably. Acting unfairly or unreasonably does not mean that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution can sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the corporation and seek to correct them. That is not the function of the High Court under Article 226. Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints -- self-imposed undoubtedly -- of writ W.A.No.1726/2008 -3- jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless.” 6. In our view, the dictum laid down by their Lordships in the decision cited supra would apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. As the appellant who is working as an Assistant Engineer in the Devaswom Board had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement with his eyes wide open, he cannot now turn round and say that he had been misled by the Housing Board at the time when he entered into the loan agreement. 7. We do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, while confirming the orders passed by the learned Judge, we dismiss the writ appeal. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS