IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28048 of 2007(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD., 1ST FLOOR, GANESH KRIPA, SOUTH BRIDGE AVENUE ROAD, COCHIN-36, REP. BY THE BRANCH RECOVERY MANAGER, RAJESH R. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 3. JOSY JOSEPH, 4/723, MANIYATTU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024. 4. SARAMMA JOSEPH, 12/63, KACHAPPALLY HOUSE, CHAMBANNUR, ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R3 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 28048/2007-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS M/7, DATED 06/08/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.1422 OF 2007 IN S.A. NO.65 OF 2007 DRT DATED 06/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.28048 of 2007-L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a bank filed application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the first respondent District Collector. Later, this writ petition is filed alleging that the Collector had been adjourning the matter and that results in delay in the proceedings. The then District Collector has himself filed an affidavit stating that the petition was not accompanied by the necessary documents. As of now, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has later placed all the documents required by the District Collector and has obtained a receipt for that. This, obviously, shows that the petitioner admits the stand of the Collector that he could not proceed with the matter because the petitioner did not produce the requisite WP(C)28048/2007 -: 2 :- documents. This is a case where, even without producing the requisite documents, a statutory authority, the District Collector was forced, in the midst of his tight official schedules, to have an affidavit placed on record to state why there is delay in the matter. While there is no reason to assume that the District Collector would not proceed further at the earliest, I am of the firm view that the petitioner should have been more cautious in throwing allegations against the District Collector and filing this writ petition without discharging its responsibilities by placing the appropriate materials. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the situation arose because the District Collector did not apprise the petitioner of the requirement of further documents. The necessary procedure to be followed and documents to be filed in such proceedings are matters which the petitioner ought to have taken care because this Court hopes that every banking establishment has an efficient panel of legal advisors, both WP(C)28048/2007 -: 3 :- in-house, and also on consultation basis. In the aforesaid scenario and while closing this writ petition recording that the District Collector would take immediate action to do the needful, this Court is inclined to impose an order of costs on the petitioner for having invoked the jurisdiction, quite baselessly. However, being the first instance, such an order is not being made. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/250908