IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29929 of 2009(I)
1. GEETHA, W/O.K.M.SIVAPRASAD SANTHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
For Respondent :POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :03/12/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No. 29929 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against revenue
recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice for
realisation of arrears in a housing loan availed by the
petitioner from the second respondent. When the writ petition
came up for consideration on 22.10.2009, this court has
stayed conformation of sale if any, conducted pursuant to
Ext.P1 notice or further actions if no sale is conducted on the
basis of Ext.P1, for a period of one month, on condition of the
petitioner remitting the amount of Rs.15,000/- on or before
15.11.2009. It is reported that the petitioner had failed to
remit the said amount.
2. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents 1
and 2, it is mentioned that on an earlier occasion when
revenue recovery steps were initiated, the petitioner had filed
a suit before the Sub Court, Kollam as O.S.No.398/2003. The
petitioner had also filed a Writ Petition before this Court on
earlier occasion as WP(C)No.28276/2007. This court by
judgment dated 25.9.2007 issued direction to withdraw the
recovery steps on temporary basis and provided the petitioner
WPC.29929 of 2009
: 2 :
with facility to make payment of loan amount in installments.
Since the petitioner has defaulted in availing the benefit
granted under that judgment, the recovery steps is now being
perused. It is further stated that on 7.9.2009, the petitioner
approached the respondents seeking One Time Settlement of
the arrears and the respondents have intimated the petitioner
about the decisions with respect to One Time Settlement,
wherein considerable reduction to the tune of Rs. 4,21,052/-
was granted.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the
present writ petition without divulging all the above facts.
Therefore, the writ petition deserves no consideration. From
the facts stated above it is evident that the petitioner had
approached this Court not with clean hands. Further there is
chronic default from the side of the petitioner in availing any
of the benefit of the earlier judgment, as well as offers made
by the respondent. The petitioner had failed to comply with
the interim condition imposed in this writ petition.
Therefore the writ petition deserves no merit and the
same is hereby dismissed.
( C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE)
jma