IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11063 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE PAUL, S/O.PAUL MATHEW, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, KAVIKUNNU P.O., LALAM VILLAGE, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PALA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, PALA. 4. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHENGALAM BRANCH, P.B.NO.1, NIRAPPEL BUILDINGS, CHENGALAM IN KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 11063 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- DATED:APRIL 3, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The petitioner availed a loan from the 4th respondent bank for constructing a residential building and admittedly he has committed default. There is also a suit instituted by the 4th respondent as OS No.54/2008 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pala, pending for recovery of the amount. According to the petitioner he repaid an amount of Rs.1 lakh which was adjusted towards the interest due. The 4th respondent is alleged to threaten the petitioner to repay the balance amount within one week. On 30.3.2009 a goonda, a hiring recovery agent of the bank, is said to have contacted the petitioner over a mobile phone and threatened the petitioner that if he is not repaying the entire balance amount within ten days, he will be evicted forcibly from his residential building. 2. The 4th respondent entered appearance through counsel and submits that being a public sector bank, it will not and it does not indulge in such activities. According to him, the bank has proceeded under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 W.P.(C) No. 11063 of 2009 : 2 : and the possession of the building is being taken after due notice to the petitioner. 3. However, receipt of notice of any such proceedings by the petitioner is disputed. It is not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter as to whether such proceedings are initiated and notice given in accordance with law, as that is a matter which the petitioner can take up in separate proceedings if he has got any grievance regarding such proceedings. 4. The facts as stated above does not instill confidence in the mind of this court to say that there was any harassment meted out to the petitioner. If the petitioner is able to convince the police authorities about any such threatening over mobile phone said to have been received by him, the police will ascertain from which number the call has been made and will enquire in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mt/-