IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 25706 of 2007(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KUZHUPILLY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.P.V.DIBU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE FARMERS' DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. M.P. ANTONY, MALIYEKKAL VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. M.P. PETER, MALIYEKKAL VEEDU, MUNAMBAM, KUZHUPILLI. 5. M.K. RAMANAN, MARAYI VEEDU, MUNAMBAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 25706/2007 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION FOR HOUSING LOAN TO THE LIMIT OF RS. 1,50,000/- EXT.P2. COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DT. 12/10/1996 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DT. 21/3/97. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE AGREEEMENT EXECUTED BY THE R3 AVAILING THE HOUSING LOAN OF RS. 1,40000/- DT. 8/4/97. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 16/11/2004 IN ARC 1040/2001. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 17/2/2006 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE R3 TO R5. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION IN EA NO. 271/2006 IN ARC 1040/2001 DT. 12/3/2007. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE R2 DT. 30/5/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.25706 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner Bank challenges Ext.P8 order issued by the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission. Reference is made to Ext.P1 to show that the loan availed was not an agricultural loan and that the petitioner before the Debt Relief Commission, namely Sri.M.P.Antony is employed as a Senior Inspector in some establishment. On such premise, it is argued that the matter does not fall within the provisions of the Act under which Ext.P8 order has been issued. Though different other arguments were also placed on the jurisdictional aspect as to whether an order could have been issued without concluding on the repayment capacity etc., I am satisfied that Ext.P8 is only a prima facie view and that the order is only an interlocutory one. Therefore, the Bank can very WPC25706/2007 -:2:- well move the Commission for either modifying Ext.P8 order or for a final decision on the basis of the pleadings and materials. I am therefore not inclined to exercise the jurisdictional discretion of this Court and interfere with Ext.P8 order. Writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to what is stated above. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.