IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25591 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 55. VETTIKKADAN HOUSE, KAREKKAD P.O., KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE KOTTAKKAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, KOTTAPPADI, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (GENERAL MANAGER) KOTTAKKAL CO-IOERATIVE URBAN BANK, KOTTAPPADI, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.25591 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent. On default in repayment, action was taken for recovery. That led to proceedings which was attempted to be challenged before this Court by the writ petitioner, filing W.P(C).3077/07. An interim order was granted in that case on 25.1.2007, imposing a condition to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of one month. According to the petitioner, he paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- following that order. Later, that writ petition itself was disposed of on 30.3.2007, giving the petitioner a time frame of 10 equal monthly instalments to pay off the balance. Evidently, he did not repay. This has led to Ext.P1 notification under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act for sale. Obviously, the measure taken is in accordance with the said Act and Rules. There is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in those proceedings. WPC.25591/08 Page numbers 2. The petitioner wants further interference of this Court to enlarge the time frame for repayment. He also attempted to project Ext.P2, circular No.41/08 issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, relatable to certain support by way of concessions to the Agricultural sector. Barring his statement in the opening sentence of the writ petition that the petitioner belongs to a family of small time farmers in Malappuram, there is no shred of material to show that the loan was availed for an agricultural purpose or that the petitioner is an agriculturist. I notice this, because, the benefit of debts relief schemes available to the agricultural sector can be extended only to persons who are agriculturists and who have availed loans for agricultural purpose as provided in those schemes. Not only that, the second respondent is an urban bank not concerned with financing for the agricultural sector. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere. The petitioner, having invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the Act proceedings, will also be debarred from raising any proceedings under the provisions of that Act. WPC.25591/08 Page numbers 3. In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Obviously, this judgment is issued without prejudice to the right of the petitioner for making payments in terms of the SARFAESI Act to avert or to recall sale. Communicate copy of this judgment to the second respondent. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.26/8.