IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 8606 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH,THRISSUR DISTRICT REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERRY. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KSHB BUILDING KOCHI-682036. 5. SRI.E.K.WILSON, MANAGING PARTNER, EVK OUSHADASALA, GANDHINAGAR, ENASSERY HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM-680503. 6. SMT.ALICE, PARTNER, E.V.K. OUSHADASALA, GANDHINAGAR, ENASSERY HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM-680503. 7. SRI.VIMAL WILSON, PARTNER, E.V.K. OUSHADASALA GANDHINAGAR, ENASSERY HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM -680503. 8. BIO RESEARCH PHARMACEUTICALS, U.BROTHERS BUILDING, GURUVAYUR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM- 680503. 9. BAUIOSE SALES & MARKETING PRIVATE LTD., U.BROTHERS BUILDING, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM-680503. 10. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 8606 of 2009(U) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN R4 BY ADV. MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL. R5 TO R9 BY ADV. MR. C. PRABIN BENNY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 8606 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner Bank has approached this Court, challenging Exts.P5 and P6 sale proceedings pursued by the respondents 1 to 3, whereby the rights and interests of the Bank over the propeprty concerned are very much adversely being affected. The case of the petitioner/Bank is that it has provided various loans to the respondents No. 5 to 9 on the basis of the security created by Equitable Mortgage, by depositing title deeds. When they turned to be chronic defaulters, there was no other alternative but to pursue appropriate proceedings before the DRT by filing O.A.Nos. 1182 and 1185 of 1999. It is evident from the materials on record that the DRT has allowed the O.As and passed necessary decree, as evident from Exts. P1 and P2. On the basis of the recovery certificates, the 4th respondent published necessary proclamation for sale of the mortgaged W.P.(C) No. 8606 OF 2009 2 properties and it was at this point of time, that the first respondent intervened stating that there was huge arrears by way of salestax dues payable by the concerned parties and hence that the revenue authorities were very much entitled to proceed against the properties. Pursuant to this, the sale was conducted by the departmental authorities without any notice to the Petitioner/Bank, which came to the notice of the petitioner/Bank only subsequently. 2. It is pointed out by Mr. M. Pathrose Matthai, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, that the sale conducted by the respondents 1 to 3 without any notice to the Bank is contrary to the mandate given by this Court, as per the decision rendered in W.P.(C) No. 36402 of 2003 and also contrary to the contents of Ext. P4 Circular issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. The factual position, as to the non- issuance of notice is rather conceded from the part of respondents 1 and 4, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader upon getting necessary instructions in this regard. 3. Adv. Mr. C.Prabin Benny, the learned counsel appearing W.P.(C) No. 8606 OF 2009 3 for the respondents 5 to 9 submitted that in the event of setting aside the sale, the property should be re-entrusted with them, which however does not form the subject matter of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner/Bank. The remedy of respondents 5 to 9 has to be sorted out independently in appropriate proceedings. 4. Considering the undisputed facts and figures, the impugned proceedings (Exts. P5 and P6) are set aside and the first respondent is directed to proceed with the matter, if so intended, only after giving proper notice to the Bank, enabling them to raise appropriate pleadings seeking out their remedies. It is also made clear that the respondents 5 to 9 will be at liberty to pursue their remedies in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk