IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5073 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SALAUDEEN K.E, AGED 53, S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY RAWTHER, THOITHALA PUTHENVEEDU, KANNIMOLTHERI, PATTAZHI, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD PATHANAPURAM BRANCH, PATHANAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.5073/2010-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein had availed a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- in the year 1998. As there was default in repayment, revenue proceedings were initiated against him. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the first respondent to grant him the benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme based on Ext.P7 application. According to the petitioner, he had made some payments earlier and had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.18731/2008, when there was proceedings for recovery against him. The same was disposed of by Ext.P6 Judgment directing the Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 therein. According to the petitioner, there was no information with regard to the settlement or the availability of any scheme. Coming to know about the One Time Settlement Scheme, he filed Ext.P7 along with a demand draft for Rs.20,000/- on 21/11/2009. Finally, by Ext.P9 dated 23/01/2010, the demand draft was returned which according to them is not in terms of the One Time Settlement Scheme. In these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C). No.5073/2010 -:2:- 2. The petitioner has pointed out various circumstances which prevented him from making the payments in time during the currency of the loan as he was in dire financial difficulties. 3. In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent it is stated that on two occasions the petitioner was offered with the opportunity to clear the dues by way of paying in instalments which is beyond the agreement conditions also. He was given a further information on 12/08/2008 when the Government extended the One Time Settlement Scheme. The notice issued to the petitioner in this regard is produced as Ext.R1(e). It is pointed out that the demand draft for Rs.20,000/- was returned in the light of the fact that the same is only a paltry amount and the petitioner has to remit a total amount of Rs.5,09,780/- as on 28/02/2010 to clear the loan. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was eager to close the loan after availing the One Time Settlement Scheme and a substantial reduction was liable to be granted and a proper intimation could have been given. What has happened in this case is that Ext.P7 is not addressed to the Secretary or the Chairman. Actually, the petitioner could have moved the Accounts Officer concerned and that was also not done. In W.P.(C). No.5073/2010 -:3:- these circumstances, at this stage, this Court will not be justified in issuing a direction to the respondents to grant One Time Settlement Scheme to the petitioner as the scheme is over on 31/12/2009. Therefore, if the Government extends the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, then the petitioner's claim for grant of the said benefit will also be considered. If One Time Settlement Scheme is not being extended and if the petitioner makes a substantial payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) within a period of three weeks, the respondents will consider the granting of eligible benefits and sufficient time will be granted for remitting the balance amount also. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms