IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29499 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.T.THITHEEVI, D/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, THAYYALINKAL P.O., THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, (M 11), TIRUR .PIN-676 101. 2. TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., (M 11), TIRUR, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY-PIN-676 101. BY ADV.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.29499/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4/2/2010. P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.9614/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER ON 5/9/2011. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/9/2011. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16/9/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29499 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent bank on the security of an item of immovable property. When the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan, the bank took steps to bring the security to sale under the provisions of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act, 19084. Ext.P1 sale notice dated 4.2.2010 was thereupon issued proposing to sell the security by public auction on 23.10.2010 to realize the sum of Rs.10,57,517/- due as on 15.1.2010 with future interest and other charges. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.9614 of 2010 in this Court challenging the sale notice. The only ground raised in the said writ petition was that the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to pay the amount due in instalments and a request in that regard was not considered. 2. When W.P.(C) No.9614 of 2010 came up for hearing on 23.8.2011, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent bank submitted on instructions that as on 31.8.2011, the sum of Rs.11,86,670/- and the expenses incurred for bringing the property to W.P.(C) No.29499 of 2011 2 sale are due from the petitioner. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent bank further submitted that the petitioner can avail the benefit of the one time settlement scheme that was then in force by paying the entire amount due in lump on or before 15.9.2011 or pay the sum of Rs.11,865,670/- with future interest and other charges within a period of three months. Taking note of the submissions made at the Bar, I disposed of W.P.(C) No.9614 of 2010 by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 23.8.2011 with a direction that in the event of the petitioner approaching the second respondent bank seeking the benefit of Circular Nos.41 of 2011 dated 23.6.2011 and 62 of 2011 dated 12.8.2011 within one week from the date of judgment, the bank shall inform the petitioner in writing of the amount which the petitioner will have to pay under the one time settlement scheme to close the loan account. I also directed that the petitioner shall pay the amount determined by the bank on or before 15.9.2011 and upon such payment being made, the bank shall close the loan account and return the documents of title to the petitioner. It was also observed that if the petitioner does not deposit the amount within the time stipulated, it will be open to the bank to proceed to sell the security and to recover the amount due from the W.P.(C) No.29499 of 2011 3 petitioner in lump. 3. The petitioner did not submit a representation as directed by this Court. However, the bank extended the benefits available under the Circulars referred to above and informed the petitioner that in the event of the petitioner paying the sum of Rs.11,89, 711/- on or before 15.9.2011, the petitioner will be given a rebate of Rs.1,20,759/- from that amount. The petitioner was also informed that if she does make the payment, the bank will proceed with the steps taken by it to recover the said amount. Upon receipt of said intimation, the petitioner sent Ext.P4 letter dated 15.9.2011 requesting the bank to permit her to deposit the sum of Rs.11,89,711/- in instalments. The bank thereupon sent Ext.P5 letter dated 16.9.2011 stating that in view of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, the bank cannot grant the request for an opportunity to pay the amount due in instalments. This writ petition was thereupon filed on 3.11.2011 seeking the following reliefs:- a)Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to quash the original of the same. b)Writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to grant the facility of 15 instalments to clear the dues. W.P.(C) No.29499 of 2011 4 c)To grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings. 4. I heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. A reading of Ext.P2 judgment makes it evident that it was after taking note of the request made in Ext.P1 for an opportunity to pay the amount due in instalments that this Court directed the bank to extend to the petitioner the benefits flowing from Circular Nos.41 of 2011 dated 23.6.2011 and 62 of 2011 dated 12.8.2011. The petitioner was also directed to pay the amount determined as per the above circulars in lump on or before 15.9.2011. The bank acted on the said judgment and gave a rebate of Rs.1,20,759/- to the petitioner. The petitioner was however not willing to avail the benefit of the judgment. The petitioner who has not complied with Ext.P2 judgment cannot in my opinion seek or be granted an opportunity to pay the amount due from her in instalments. It is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that she is not willing to discharge the loan and her attempt is only to delay the recovery. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ W.P.(C) No.29499 of 2011 5 petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29499 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 4th November, 2011 --------------------------------------