IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9610 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.NAZAR,S/O.C.C.MEMI,RESIDING AT SAHAL MANZIL,HOUSE NO.XII-17,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O.IRIKKUR,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,SOUTH BAZAR.P.O, CIVIL STATION,KANNUR-670 002. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN,S.C. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9610 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking directions against the 1st respondent to restrain from proceeding with steps of recovery against property belonging to the petitioner. Admittedly the property in question stands mortgaged in favour of the respondent Bank, with respect to a housing loan availed by the petitioner. It is further admitted that the Bank had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained recovery certificate with respect to realisation of arrears due in the loan account. Ext.P1 is a letter issued by the respondent Bank to the Village Officer concerned to identify the land in question, for the purpose of initiating proceedings for execution of the recovery certificate. Ext.P2 is a further letter issued by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal making a similar request to the Village Officer. 2. I do not find any ground to interfere with the W.P.(C).9610/11 -2- proceedings. If the Recovery Officer is taking steps for execution of the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it is left open to the petitioner to approach such authority seeking appropriate reliefs. However, a writ of mandamus could not be issued restraining the recovery steps, under the above mentioned circumstances. 3. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the appropriate authorities. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb