IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 W.A.No. 988 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10875/2008 DATED 31.3.2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- ALPHA PAUL.C.P., CHAZHOOR HOUSE , CHURCH BAZAR, NELLIKUNNU, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, TRICHUR DIVISION, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, TRICHUR R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.JAYASANKAR R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.988 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10875 of 2008 dated 31st March, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge while sustaining Ext.P9 demand notice issued by the first respondent Housing Board ('the Board' for short) has granted two equal monthly instalment facilities to the petitioner to make payment of the OTS amount of Rs.5,20,720/-. 2. At the time of hearing of the writ appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the calculations made by the first respondent Board is illegal and irregular and, therefore, this Court should interfere with Ext.P9 demand notice issued by the first respondent Board and also the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. At the outset, we intend to observe that though the first respondent Board is a statutory authority, when substantial disputed questions of facts are involved, the writ Court is not normally expected to entertain the writ petition. Secondly, the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the difficulties pleaded by the petitioner, has granted certain instalment facilities to pay up the amounts due under Ext.P9 demand notice. Even that harmless order is the subject matter of this writ appeal. Be that as it may. The learned counsel W.A.No.988 of 2008 2 appearing for the appellant further submits that this Court need not have to express its opinion on the merits of the writ appeal since he intends to approach the civil court to sort out his grievances. 4. Placing on record the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we dispose of this writ appeal without going into its merits or demerits. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant, if he so desires, to approach the civil court subject to the period of limitation. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE vns