IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 2041 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35289/2010 Dated 26/11/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- VIJI P.ISSAC, CHAIRMAN, THE INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL & SPIRITUAL ACADEMY, PONNAL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2041 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The instant appeal arises out of a writ petition, No.35289 of 2010, which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal dated 26.11.2010. The appellant herein is the petitioner therein. 2. The 1st respondent Board, a statutory body, brought to sale a commercial building owned by a third party (the reasons and the history of such a transaction is not necessary for the present purpose). Tenders were invited by the 1st respondent Board. The appellant herein became the successful bidder, who offered an amount of `4.10 Crores for purchasing the abovementioned building. However, the 1st respondent's decision to bring the property to sale was challenged by one of the unsuccessful bidders in an earlier Writ Petition, No.1982 of 2007, which stood dismissed by an order of this Court dated 04.01.2008 and confirmed by judgment dated 02.03.2010 in W.A. No.225 of 2008. In WA No. 2041 of 2010 -:2:- other words, for a period of almost three years the transaction between the appellant and the 1st respondent Board could not be finalised during the pendency of the abovementioned litigation. 3. Subsequent to the abovementioned judgment in the writ appeal, the appellant herein was called upon to remit the bid amount within a period of 30 days. After some correspondence, the 1st respondent Board by its letter dated 10.11.2010 called upon the appellant to remit the amount due on or before 25.11.2010 with a further intimation that in default of the remittance, the offer made by the 1st respondent Board would stand cancelled. 4. Challenging the above communication dated 10.11.2010, the appellant herein approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.35289 of 2010. By the judgment under appeal, the writ petition was dismissed. 5. When the appeal came up for admission, by an order dated 03.12.2010, this Court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned correspondence on condition that the appellant deposits an amount of `50 lakhs within a specified period to demonstrate the bonafides of the WA No. 2041 of 2010 -:3:- appellant. It was also directed that apart from the abovementioned deposit, the appellant should pay the entire amount as per the terms of the bid made by him within a period of three months from the abovementioned order. 6. The appellant deposited the abovementioned amount of `50 lakhs within the period stipulated, though there is a delay in paying the balance amount due from the appellant. 7. Today, when the matter was taken up, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Devan Ramachandran that the balance amount due from the appellant, i.e. an amount of `3,59,00,200/-, was paid by a cheque drawn on the North Malabar Gramin Bank dated 07.04.2011. The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the receipt of the abovementioned cheque, though the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said cheque is subject to realisation. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that in view of the delay in payment by the appellant, the appellant is also liable to pay interest for the period of delay in making the payment. WA No. 2041 of 2010 -:4:- 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that the appellant was prevented for a period of three years from proceeding with the Board and securing the transfer of the property in his favour, in view of the pendency of the writ petition at the instance of a third party, we are not inclined to direct the appellant to pay interest. 9. In the circumstances, the respondent Bank is directed to convey the property either to the appellant or to his nominee, subject to the realisation of the amount covered by the abovementioned cheque, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 2041 of 2010 -:5:-