IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36838 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHAJI K.T., S/O.THYAGARAJAN, KALLAPPALLI HOUSE, SASIMALA P.O., KAPPISET, PULPALLY, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LALGI P.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOZHIKODE REGIONAL OFFICE, COLOMBO COMPLEX, M.M.ALI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KALPETTA BRANCH, WAYANADU DISTRICT. 3. THE SALE OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KALPETTA BRANCH, WAYANADU DISTRICT. R1 – R2 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... WP (C) NO. 36838 OF 2009 ............................................... Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of amount stated as due from the petitioner. When the matter came for consideration before this Court on 22-12-2009, coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 15-01-2010. Subsequently, pursuant to order passed in I.A. No. 840/10, the time to satisfy the condition was extended till 15-02- 2010 making it clear that no further extension would be granted. When the matter came for further consideration on 18-02-2010 it was sought to be adjourned by 2 weeks, at the instance of the petitioner. Today, there is no representation for the petitioner as well. This Court does not find it necessity to retain the matter any further. Since it has not been brought to the notice of this Court WP (C) NO. 36838 OF 2009 2 that the condition imposed by this Court has been satisfied, this Court does not find it as a fit case to interfere with the steps taken by bank invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings by resorting to the appropriate remedy available under the statute. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge rkc