J.ALPHONSE PERARA v. THE STATE OF KERALA & Ors.

BY ADVS. SRI. VENUGOPAL V. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.9351/2013 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retired High School Assistant. He was sanctioned a housing loan by the Kerala School Teachers & Non Teaching Staff Welfare Corporation Ltd., which is a Corporation functioning under the Directorate of Public Instructions. It is not disputed that though the amount sanctioned as loan was Rs.59,720/-, the petitioner was disbursed only with an amount of Rs.34,860/-. The amount was to be repaid in 168 monthly instalments of Rs.615/- each. It is the case of the petitioner that the amount of monthly instalment of Rs.615/- was calculated with reference to the originally sanctioned amount of Rs.59,720/- and not with reference to the disbursed amount of Rs.34,860/-. It is also not disputed before me that, after availing the loan of Rs.34,860/-in the year 1990, till the year 2013, the petitioner has repaid only a total sum of Rs,21,190/-.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, since the monthly instalment of Rs.615/- is in respect of the originally sanctioned amount of Rs.59,720/-, the interest and penal interest now stated to be payable by the petitioner would be reduced. It is submitted that the petitioner retired in the month of March 2005 and on that date, the outstanding amount, [even according to Exhibit-R3(c) calculation statement], payable was only Rs.1,56,980.81. W.P.(C)No.9351/2013 3 It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to DCRG of Rs.1,73,754/-. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P3 sanction order. It is submitted that, even if the amount of Rs.1,56,980.81 which is stated to be due from the petitioner in the month of March, 2005 had been adjusted on that date itself, the petitioner would have still obtained some amount from his DCRG. It is submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, seriously disputing the method of calculation of the amount due from the petitioner and it is stated that the amount now stated to be due from the petitioner even after adjusting the entire amount of DCRG sanctioned in terms of Ext.P3 is not due from the petitioner.

The learned Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent to contend that the amount due from the petitioner has been calculated only with reference to the amount actually sanctioned to the petitioner and at the rate of interest applicable to the loan granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that on account of the failure of the petitioner to pay any amount except an amount of Rs.21,190/- paid between the period from 1990 to 2013, the liability of the petitioner has increased substantially and even after adjusting the entire amount of DCRG sanctioned to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P3, further amounts are due from the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that the 3rd respondent has no objection in W.P.(C)No.9351/2013 4 considering any claim that may be put forth by the petitioner regarding the calculation of amounts stated to be due from the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that in the nature of proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not be entitled to enter into a finding of fact and determination of the actual amount payable by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that interest at the agreed rate could have been calculated only on the amount of Rs.34,860/- which is the amount of loan actually disbursed to the petitioner, though the amount sanctioned was Rs.59,720/-. The counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent also admits that, though the petitioner was sanctioned with an amount of Rs.59,720/-, he was disbursed with an amount of only Rs.34,860/-. The petitioner may therefore file his objections to the calculation statement produced before this Court as Ext.R3(c). In the light of the above, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider any objection that may be filed by the petitioner regarding the calculation of amounts stated to be due from the petitioner on the amount of Rs.34,860/- actually disbursed to the petitioner.