IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1726 of 2008()
1. V.RAMACHANDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :19/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1726 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
The appellant had challenged Ext.P8 order passed by
respondent No.1- Kerala State Housing Board, before the learned Single
Judge, contending inter alia that the benefits available under the relevant
Housing Loan Scheme had not been extended to him.
2. The learned Single Judge repelled the said contention
and held that in so far as the appellant had expressly agreed to the terms
applicable to the HIG Scheme, he cannot now turn round and say that he
is not liable to be governed by the terms and conditions under the said
Scheme.
3. In an earlier round of litigation this Court had directed
the Board to consider the grievance of the appellant after affording him
another opportunity to be heard. It was pursuant to the above direction,
Ext.P8 order was passed by respondent No.1.
4. We have carefully perused Ext.P8 order. Respondent
No.1 had referred to the relevant clauses in the Scheme in question, and
W.A.No.1726/2008 -2-
found that the contentions now raised by the appellant are totally
untenable. It was also noticed by respondent No.1 that the Housing
Board had extended all the benefits available to all the loanees including
the appellant as and when the rate of interest had been reduced by the
Board. Admittedly the appellant had availed of the loan under the High
Income Group (HIG) Scheme in 1995 undertaking to repay the same as
per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. It is also
beyond controversy that the appellant had been offered substantial
reduction under the One Time Settlement Scheme.
5. The scope of interference of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is very narrow and limited especially when it
comes to an agreement between a Statutory Corporation and a debtor. In
U.P.Financial Corporation Vs. M/s.Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd and Others
(AIR 1993 SC 1435) their Lordships have held thus:
“In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a
writ court has no say except in two situations: (1)
there is a statutory violation on the part of the
Corporation, or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly
i.e., unreasonably. Acting unfairly or unreasonably
does not mean that the High Court exercising its
jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution can sit as
an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the
corporation and seek to correct them. That is not the
function of the High Court under Article 226. Doctrine
of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not
supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate
authorities over administrative authorities. The
constraints — self-imposed undoubtedly — of writW.A.No.1726/2008 -3-
jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to
confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may
become rudderless.”
6. In our view, the dictum laid down by their Lordships in
the decision cited supra would apply to the facts and circumstances of
this case. As the appellant who is working as an Assistant Engineer in
the Devaswom Board had agreed to the terms and conditions of the
agreement with his eyes wide open, he cannot now turn round and say
that he had been misled by the Housing Board at the time when he
entered into the loan agreement.
7. We do not find any material irregularity or illegality in
the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, while confirming
the orders passed by the learned Judge, we dismiss the writ appeal.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS