IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1920 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.ZAVIER, S/O ANCHALOSE, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT AJANTHA HOUSE, PULLUVILA P.O., PULLUVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOVAR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BHASURAM COMPLEX, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695525. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER(ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION-II, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOVAR BRANCH, BHASURAM COMPLEX, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1920 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 30, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to comply with Exts.P4 and P5 and to provide the benefits thereof to the petitioner and also to keep in abeyance all recovery proceedings. Petitioner also seeks a direction for one time settlement and also to permit the petitioner to conduct private sale of the secured assets to remit the loan amounts due to the bank. 2. In so far as Exts.P4 and P5 are concerned, it would appear that Ext. P4 was issued in pursuance to the recommendation of the Select Committee of the Legislature of the State, since a legislation for the debt relief of the fishermen is pending introduction in the legislature. It is stated that on the recommendation of the Select Committee the Government have issued Ext. P4 order requesting the financial institutions to defer coercive action against the fishermen. Petitioner would also submit that Ext. P5 has been WP(C) 1920/08 Page numbers issued by the Government requesting the 3rd respondent to defer proceedings against the petitioner in view of Ext. P4. Thus what the petitioner claims is the benefit of moratorium as mentioned in Ext. P4 and P5. 2. The learned standing counsel for the bank who appeared on notice submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order. According to the standing counsel, from Ext. P1 it can be seen that the petitioner got membership in the Fishermen Welfare Fund Board only on 23.11.2004 and that the loan in question was availed of in the year 2002. The submission therefore is that the loan availed of by the petitioner was not as a fisherman, but was for the purpose of purchasing fishing trawlers. It is stated that such a loan will not get the protection of Ext. P4 Government Order. 3. Yet another request made by the counsel for the writ petitioner is for time for payment of the debt that is due. This prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner is also opposed by the counsel for the bank. It is stated that when securitisation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, he had WP(C) 1920/08 Page numbers approached this court by filing WP(C) 28563/07 which resulted in Ext. P2 judgment wherein installment facility was granted making it clear that on default thereof the bank will be free to proceed against the petitioner. It is contented that the petitioner had committed default and that the bank proceeded to take over possession of the secured assets. On this basis the bank opposes the prayer for time as well. 5. After hearing the counsel on both sides, I am in agreement with the counsel for the bank that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Ext. P4. First of all , Ext. P4 talks about conferring benefits to fishermen. In this case the loan itself was availed of by the petitioner for purchase of fishing trawlers, though classified as an agricultural loan. From this itself it is evident that the loan was availed of in the capacity of a fisherman but was a businessman. If that be so, the benefit that is intended to be conferred on the fishermen cannot be availed of by the petitioner. 6. Even otherwise I have serious doubts as to whether the bank is bound by Ext. P5, which is only a request from the Government to defer the proceedings against the petitioner. When WP(C) 1920/08 Page numbers the bank takes action for recovering its debts, in the absence of any statutory power, the Government have no power to interfere with the matter and restrain the bank from proceeding further. Be that as it may, now that I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Ext. P4, a pronouncement on the binding nature of Ext. P5 is unnecessary. 7. Coming to the request made by the petitioner for time, I notice that in Ext.P2 judgment, this court had already granted instalment facility and also incorporated a default clause. The petitioner has admittedly committed default and, if that be so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to file yet another petition and seek an order in variance with the directions issued by this court in Ext.P2 judgment itself. For these reasons I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-