IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6269 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. V.S. THAMPI, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, VELIATHUMALIL HOUSE, ELENJI, ERNAKULAM, PRESIDENT, NETAJI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REGISTRATION NO. ER-135/97, ANTHIAL, PERUMPADAVAM, ERNAKULAM- 686 665. 2. SRI. BABY JOSEPH, S/O. V.C. JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, VELATHUMALIL HOUSE, ELENJI, ERNAKULAM, SECRETARY, NETAJI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REGISTRATION NO. ER 135/97, ANTHIAL PERUMPADAVAM, ERNAKULAM 686 665. 3. SMT. VALSA THAMPI, W/O. THAMPI, AGED 54 YEARS, VELIATHUMALIL HOUSE, ELENJI, ERNAKULAM, TREASURER, NETAJI, EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REGISTRATION NO. ER. 135/97, ANTHIAL PERUMPADAVAM, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SME BRANCH, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SME BRANCH, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 6269 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th April , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed a memo dated 05.04.2010 seeking for permission to withdraw the Writ Petition without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy by approaching the DRT . 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, referring to the sequence of events opposed the relief prayed for with regard to the reservation of right to pursue the statutory remedy. 3. Considering the fact that the merits of the case have not been discussed or decided by this Court, nothing prevents the petitioner from availing the statutory remedy, which in fact, is a vested right. The fact that the petitioner failed to comply with the condition imposed by this Court while granting the interim relief is not sufficient to forfeit such statutory right . If W.P.(C) No. 6269 OF 2009 2 the condition is not complied with, the only consequence is that the discretionary jurisdiction invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be exercised, warranting dismissal of the Writ Petition, which otherwise cannot place any hurdle in availing the statutory remedy. In the said circumstance, the Writ Petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to avail the statutory remedy. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk