High Court Kerala High Court

The Kerala State Housing Board vs Smt. M.P.Meenakshi on 13 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Housing Board vs Smt. M.P.Meenakshi on 13 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1940 of 2007()


1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

                        Vs



1. SMT. M.P.MEENAKSHI, W/O. M.R.MADHAVAN
                       ...       Respondent

2. SRI. S.BHARATHAN,

3. M.ASOKA,

4. SRI. P.BHASKARAN,

5. SMT. T.K.RAJALAKSHMI,

6. SRI. JAYADEVA KUMARAN NAIR,

7. C.T.FRANCIS,

8. SAJAL NARAYAN, (POWER OF ATTORNEY OF

9. A.PADMAVATHI,

10. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN T.,

                For Petitioner  :POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.JANARDHANAN

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :13/06/2008

 O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

W.A.Nos. 1940, 1968 & 2067 of 2007

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008
Judgment
H.L. Dattu, C. J:

The issue raised in this writ appeal is identical with the issue raised and

considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the Kerala State Housing Board v.

The Kerala State Housing Board Nellikode Housing Colony Allottees Association

(W.A.No.1760 of 2004). In the said decision this Court has stated as hereunder:

“3. From the portion of the judgment extracted
above what transpires is that the amount payable
was as on 14.7.1992, but was paid in 1997.
Despite that the learned Single Judge has only
directed that the Board would not recover interest
from 9.10.1997 till the date of service of individual
account statement. There cannot be any
interference to the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge as noted above. The appellants
cannot punish the petitioners for its own lethargy
and selectness. It requires to be mentioned that
almost all the prayers made by the petitioners were
declined and the only prayer that has been allowed
needs no interference in this appeal. There is no
merit in this appeal which we dismiss leaving,
however, the parties to bear their own costs.

Respectively, following the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision, in

our opinion this appeal also requires to be rejected , and it is rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU
Chief Justice

A.K. BASHEER
Judge

an.