IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12669 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RAMESH, ROHINI, OORUPOIKA P.O., KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, LHO ANNEXE (WING-1), 1ST FLOOR, CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.12669 of 2010-G ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the successful bidder, who took part in the public auction conducted by the respondent Bank in connection with the steps for realization of the amount stated as due from the defaulter, who had availed a loan from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. 2. The case of the petitioner is that even though the property was notified as having 8.3 ares vide Ext.P1 notification, subsequently on conducting the measurement by the petitioner, it was actually found as having only an extent of 6.39 ares and in the said circumstances, the petitioner demanded to return the EMD paid by the petitioner, as not interested to have the said extent. The request made by the petitioner was turned down from the part of the respondents, stating that the property was subjected to sale by way of public auction and that if the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner, it was for him to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. W.P(C) No.12669 of 2010-G 2 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the auction conducted at the instance of the Bank was in tune with the relevant provisions of the law and the terms of Ext.P1 notification. The version put forth from the part of the petitioner is also rebutted from the part of the Bank, seeking to sustain the action in forfeiting the EMD, on the basis of the failure from the part of the petitioner to clear 25% of the bid amount and satisfying the balance amount as specified. In any view of the matter, this Court finds that, to have proper adjudication of the matter, it requires evidence to be adduced before the appropriate forum, as to the actual facts and figures and this Court does not propose to go into the merit of the case. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to substantiate the case projected in the Writ Petition. All the issues raised in the Writ Petition are left open. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab