IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30854 of 2009(B)
1. CHACKO JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
For Respondent :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B
----------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
steps taken by the respondent Board under the relevant provisions
of the Revenue Recovery Act for realization of the amount stated as
due from him under a loan transaction.
2. It is stated that the petitioner had availed a ‘housing
loan’ of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent in the year 1996 by creating
equitable mortgage over the property in question. It is also
conceded in the Writ Petition that the re-payment could not be
effected on time, because of the sudden down fall in the business,
which made the respondent to proceed with further steps. The
further contention of the petitioner in para 4 of the Writ Petition is
that even though he had approached the Board for seeking the
benefit of ‘One Time Settlement’ with the intention to settle the loan
account, the respondent was adamant in not extending the benefit
under the One Time Settlement or by other schemes and stated that
W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 2
the schemes were not applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, a
specific prayer has been incorporated in the Writ Petition to direct
the respondent to provide the benefit of One Time Settlement or
similar benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner’s challenge is also
with regard to the rate of interest, being raised by the respondent
contrary to the terms of the rules and guidelines issued by the
Reserve Bank of India.
3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out
the sequence of events right from the beginning, asserting that the
steps taken by the respondent including the rate of interest
demanded and sought to be realized is perfectly within the four
walls of the law and never contrary to the terms and agreement or
any guidelines.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent also brought to
the notice of this Court, that the loan was sanctioned to the
petitioner under the ‘higher income group’ category, considering his
re-paying capacity on the basis of the income certificate produced
by him at the time of availing the loan. Despite this, the petitioner
was not at all anxious to have the loan account regularized and
settled, but continues to be a defaulter for nearly 1 = decades. It is
W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 3
further brought to the notice of this Court vide para 8 of the counter
affidavit that there was One Time Settlement in the Board from
7.2.2004 to 31.3.2008 and intimation was sent to the petitioner
intimating the details of the said scheme, vide notices
dtd.15.3.2004, 19.6.2004, 22.12.2004, 29.1.2005, 25.2.2005,
15.12.2006. Besides that, personal contact was also made over
Telephone. It is also stated that officers of the Board had visited the
petitioner at his residence for intimating the benefit of One Time
Settlement; in spite of which, there was no attempt from the part
of the petitioner in clearing the liability by availing the benefit of
One Time Settlement. It is specifically pointed out that as on
31.12.2009, the petitioner is liable to pay more than Rs.10,61,32/-
for closing the loan account.
5. Being confronted with the factual position as above, the
petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the benefit of One
Time Settlement was not communicated over telephone as stated in
para 8; however, adding that the petitioner could not avail the
benefit under the One Time Settlement, since he was not having the
amount with him. As noted above, it is also stated in para 8 of the
counter affidavit that the officers of the respondent Board had
W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 4
personally visited the petitioner at his residence intimating the
benefit of One Time Settlement, which plea has not been chosen to
be denied by the petitioner. It is without any reference to the said
opportunity given and intimation already served on the petitioner,
the petitioner has mentioned in para 4 of the Writ Petition that, even
though the petitioner had approached the respondent Board for
availing the benefit of One Time Settlement, the benefit thereunder
was being denied by the respondent; which can’t be true at all.
6. With regard to the rate of interest charged by the
respondent, the learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondent Board submits that the agreed rate of interest was
brought down to 15.5% from the year 2003, in view of the relevant
circulars issued by the Board. Similar course is stated as pursued
with regard to the payment of ‘default interest’ as well. The
challenge raised by the petitioner as to the contravention in respect
of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is not supported
by any materials. More so, the Reserve Bank of India is not included
in the party array.
In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit
case, to interfere with the cause of action projected by the
W.P(C) No. 30854 of 2009-B 5
petitioner. The Writ Petition fails and the conduct being pursued by
the petitioner is deprecated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
dismissed. Considering the persuasive submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court abstains from ordering
cost.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab