Judgment :- 1. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. Heard Ms.Arulmozhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.L..Shanmughasundaram, learned Addl.G.P. for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.L.M.Mahendran, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the third respondent. 3. A notice issued by the second respondent-Joint Registrar of Housing Co-operative Societies, Salem, pursuant to the decree/award in A.S.No.4916/04-05, dated 12.6.2009 in the third respondent-Society's Reference No.Oo.694, has been called in question by the petitioner seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to extend the concession of waiver of interest with modified monthly instalments and with normal interest. 4. The petitioner's case is that he obtained a housing loan for Rs.1 lakh on 18.9.2001 in Loan No.10/01-02 from the third respondent-Society with an initial easy monthly instalments at Rs.1487.17 and the repayment period of 15 years @ 16.25% interest p.a. and also with penal interest @ 2% per month. From the loan borrowed, he constructed a small tiled house in his vacant land ad-measuring 0.03 cent (1395 Sq.Ft) and also given his land measuring 0.30 cent for security of the loan. Except the said piece of land, the petitioner has no other property. He being engaged in daily wages seasonal work, repaid a sum of RS.70,000/-including the principal and interest over the period of ten years. Due to the addition of interest with penal interest @ 2% per month, he could not repay the principal amount and Rs.9,000/-was deducted in principal and the balance due in principal as on 31.1.2010 was shown as Rs.99,151/-. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family, having wife, son and daughter, depending on him for their survival and the education and with hard-earned money, and he repaid the said sum of Rs.70,000/- over ten years and most of the amounts was adjusted towards the interest and high rate of interest @ 16.5 % p.a. together with penal interest @ 2% p.m, caused severe pressure on the petitioner to settle the loan. 5. While so, the petitioner received a demand notice on 18.11.2009 calling him to pay Rs.2,27,061/- and thereafter, the petitioner paid Rs.24,524/-on 30.1.2010. 5. While so, the petitioner received a demand notice on 18.11.2009 calling him to pay Rs.2,27,061/- and thereafter, the petitioner paid Rs.24,524/-on 30.1.2010. Once again the petitioner received summons to appear before the second respondent-Joint Registrar of Housing, Co-operative Societies, Salem, on 12.6.2010 and as the petitioner could not appear before the second respondent on 12.6.2010, an ex-parte decree was passed on 12.6.2010 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,13,896/-with 12% compound interest in A.R.C.No.4916/04-05, dated 12.6.2010. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu declared concession to housing society loans in G.O.Ms.No.113, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.05.2008, announcing waiver of penal interest and 25% of the default interest. The concession was offered to the other members of the Society, but not to the petitioner and hence, he requested the third respondent-Society to extend the concession to him also like other members, but the third respondent has not considered the said request. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent on 10.2.2011, and thereafter, he personally met the third respondent and requested him to recommend his case for concession of waiver scheme. Even after a lapse of eight months, no orders have been passed by the third respondent. On the contrary, the respondents demanded to pay the entire amount and there was a constant threat of auction of his property so as to execute the decree passed by the second respondent for his non-payment of Rs.2,13,896/-. 7. The petitioner has been genuinely trying to pay the loan with normal interest and the third respondent ought to have considered the bona-fides and granted the benefit of waiver scheme to him. Even after receipt of the said representation, dated 10.2.2011, the third respondent has not passed any orders on the same. Therefore, having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated above. 8. Even after receipt of the said representation, dated 10.2.2011, the third respondent has not passed any orders on the same. Therefore, having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated above. 8. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit inter-alia stating as follows: (a) The petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.1 lakh on 18.9.2001 in loan No.10/01-02 from the third respondent-Society with monthly instalment of Rs.1,487.17 p.m. with duration of 15 years period of repayment with interest rate of 16.25% p.a. along with penal interest @ 2% p.m. It is stated by the third respondent that it is the submission of the petitioner that he repaid Rs.70,000/-including the principal and interest and on 12.6.2010, he received summons from the second respondent and he did not appear and hence, ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.2,13,196/- with 12% compound interest, vide order in ARC.No.4916/04-05, dated 12.6.2010. He constructed a small tiled house in the petitioner's vacant land admeasuring 0.03 cent (1295 Sq.Ft) and gave his land measuring 0.30 cent for security of the loan to the Society. (b) It is false to state that the petitioner paid Rs.70,000/-, but actually, he paid totally Rs.60,000/- only and out of this payment, amount is deducted towards penal interest and then interest and then only the principal amount is adjusted. It is false to state that Rs.9,000/- was only deducted in principal amount. Out of his repayment amount, after deducting penal interest, interest of only Rs.849/-was paid towards the principal amount and the balance principal amount is Rs.99,151/-. (c) It is not correct to state that the petitioner repaid Rs.70,000/- over ten years. Actually, he paid Rs.60,000/- only during ten years and not Rs.70,000/-. The interest as per the mortgage deed rate is 16.5% p.a. and in case of non-repayment, penal interest is 2% p.m. The interest is calculated at 11% only with effect from 1.4.2005 and not 16.5%. As per the Government Order, the party who received loan amount upto Rs.1 lakh, when he repays the balance amount, the penal interest is to be cancelled and out of the balance interest amount, 50% has to be cancelled and out of the balance interest amount, 50% has to be deducted. As per the Government Order, the party who received loan amount upto Rs.1 lakh, when he repays the balance amount, the penal interest is to be cancelled and out of the balance interest amount, 50% has to be cancelled and out of the balance interest amount, 50% has to be deducted. The petitioner did not repay the balance monthly instalment amount and so, he is not eligible for receiving the Government concession as per G.O.(Ms).No.113, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.5.2008. (d) The petitioner did not repay the amount regularly inspite of the G.O. and he did not repay the balance amount, and hence, the third respondent filed A.R.C.No.4916/04-05. The petitioner appeared before the Court and gave statement on 18.4.2005 to repay the balance amount. Inspite of that, he did not repay the balance amount. Again, he appeared before the Court on 30.1.2010 and gave statement promising to pay Rs.20,000/- on 30.1.2010, Rs.10,000/-on 1.2.2010 and the balance amount with interest within one month. (e) The petitioner paid Rs.24,524/-on 30.1.2010, but did not repay the balance amount. Again, summons were sent to the petitioner, ordering to appear before the Court on 12.6.2010 at 11 a.m., but he and his family members did not appear before the Court on 12.6.2010. (f) The Government passed the said G.O.(Ms).No.113, dated 20.5.2008, waiving penal interest and 50% of interest in case the party repays the balance amount within 1.4.2008 to 30.9.2008. It is not correct to state that waiver of penal interest at 25% is of default interest. The G.O. offers for the members of the Society who repay the balance amount within 30.9.2008. It is extended upto 31.3.2009 and not to persons who did not repay the balance amount within the period fixed by the Government. Even though the period of concession of the G.O. is extended till 30.6.2011, the petitioner did not utilise this concession. The petitioner is misleading the facts before this Court and the waiver scheme notices were sent to the petitioner, dated 17.6.2008, 26.11.2008, 16.2.2009 and on 8.12.2010, but the petitioner did not utilise the abovesaid concession. Even though the period of concession of the G.O. is extended till 30.6.2011, the petitioner did not utilise this concession. The petitioner is misleading the facts before this Court and the waiver scheme notices were sent to the petitioner, dated 17.6.2008, 26.11.2008, 16.2.2009 and on 8.12.2010, but the petitioner did not utilise the abovesaid concession. (g) Since the petitioner did not utilise the concession offered by the Government to repay the balance amount of instalments within the period fixed by the Government, with regard to his request to recommend for waiver schemes, the third respondent has not right or power to recommend for waiver benefits for the party and power to pass any order regarding the same. The petitioner had not met the third respondent and not submitted any representation. (h) It is false to state that the third respondent has been threatening the petitioner. Inspite of the decree dated 12.6.2010, the petitioner has not paid even one month instalment amount. So, the third respondent informed the same to the petitioner and advised him to repay the amount as early as possible, otherwise, he may take action to recover the amount. (i) The waiver scheme announced by the Government and the Government is the only competent authority to pass any order for waiver scheme and the representation is not pending before the third respondent. (j) The writ petition is not maintainable. Section 152(b) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 clearly states that any person aggrieved by any award of an arbitrator or arbitrators under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 90 or as per Section 152 (c), any person aggrieved by any award of arbitrator under Section 100, may appeal to the Tribunal. (k) The award was passed by the second respondent on 12.6.2010, but the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition after a lapse of more than one year. (l) with regard to the petitioner's claim of the third respondent to modify the monthly instalments with normal interest, the third respondent has no power to consider the aspect. (m) The averments in the Writ Petition are not sustainable and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed in-limine. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. (l) with regard to the petitioner's claim of the third respondent to modify the monthly instalments with normal interest, the third respondent has no power to consider the aspect. (m) The averments in the Writ Petition are not sustainable and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed in-limine. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. The main thrust of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that due to financial constraint, the petitioner could not make out the payment, though in the initial period, he has scrupulously followed the monthly instalment and paid the amount as per the agreed terms and conditions of loan and thereafter, due to certain difficulties, the petitioner could not make the payment and therefore, he went before the ARC Court and promised that he would pay Rs.20,000/- and prayed time for payment of the balance amount in instalments. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Society produced a statement/notice of the third respondent-Society, dated 8.12.2010, indicating the concession given by the Government, and the said statement/notice, dated 8.12.2010 was issued by the Secretary of the third respondent-Society, showing the balance amount due to be paid by the petitioner as on 29.10.2010, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” “TABLE” 12. It is to be noted that the petitioner has no other obligation but to fulfil the award amount as per the decree dated 12.6.2010 in ARC.No.4916/04-05 of the third respondent-Society and he has to pay the amount as quoted in the said notice dated 8.12.2010. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the third respondent-Society with interest @ 16.25% per annum and the penal interest @ 2% per month. The EMI was fixed at Rs.1,487.17 p.m. with repayment period of 15 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has initially paid some amount. But according to the petitioner, as stated in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioner, he has paid Rs.70,000/- over ten years, but according to the third respondent-Society as evidenced by its counter affidavit, the petitioner has cleared only Rs.60,000/-. Even the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Society endorses that the petitioner has paid only Rs.60,000/-. But according to the petitioner, as stated in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioner, he has paid Rs.70,000/- over ten years, but according to the third respondent-Society as evidenced by its counter affidavit, the petitioner has cleared only Rs.60,000/-. Even the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Society endorses that the petitioner has paid only Rs.60,000/-. Out of the said payment of Rs.60,000/-, amount is deducted towards penal interest and then interest and then only the amount is adjusted towards the principal amount, and after the said deductions of interests, only Rs.849/- is shown to have been paid as principal amount and according to the third respondent-Society's counter affidavit, the balance principal amount to be paid by the petitioner is at Rs.99,151/-. 14. As per the Government's scheme in G.O.Ms.No.113, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.5.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.236, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.10.2010 and the other relevant Government orders for the time being in force, and after taking into account various aspects of the loan rules and regulations/terms and conditions, if a person has availed of the loan and is suffering from non-payment because of financial difficulties, the interest and the penal interest are waived. In this case, 50% of the defaulted/penal interest is waived and there is full waiver of interest and after deducting the same from the amount actually due, the amount to be paid accrues at Rs.78,616/-and as on 29.10.2010, after deducting the said waiver scheme, the amount actually to be paid by the petitioner is shown as Rs.81,893/-, as seen from the third respondent-Society's notice, dated 8.12.2010 extracted supra. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking instructions from the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has certain financial constrainment, and that the petitioner is only earning meagre amount to eke out his livelihood and to maintain his family and inspite of these stringent financial position, he is prepared to pay Rs.20,000/-in a short span of time and the remaining amount in three equal instalments. However, this request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Society and if the entire amount due is not paid at once forthwith, the delayed payment interest will get attracted. 16. However, this request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Society and if the entire amount due is not paid at once forthwith, the delayed payment interest will get attracted. 16. Taking into consideration the overall factors and the said scheme of the Government in the various G.Os., etc., which aim to give certain concession/waiver of interest to the persons who obtained loan from the Societies, as the petitioner has availed of the waiver of interest as stated in the said G.Os. etc., the balance amount to be paid by the petitioner as seen from the notice of the third respondent-Society, dated 8.12.2010 is Rs.81,893/- and the petitioner pleads for payment of the said amount in easy instalments and his request appears to be genuine as he is prepared to discharge the entire loan genuinely without any demur/delay. 17. Considering the abovesaid facts and circumstances, and to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner shall pay the entire amount due at Rs.81,893/-as quoted in the notice of the third respondent-Society, dated 8.12.2010, in three equal instalments, first of which, shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the remaining two equal instalments shall be paid in 45 days' duration each. The said three instalments shall be paid without any demur by the petitioner as directed above, and on payment of the entire amount of the said three equal instalments, the third respondent-Society shall discharge the loan. If any amount is still due from the petitioner, other than the one stated in the notice of the third respondent-Society, dated 8.12.2010, the third respondent-Society is at liberty to recover the same from the petitioner as per the Government scheme/Government Orders/terms and conditions of the loan transactions, subject however to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 18. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.