IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30468 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ESSJAY ELECTROLINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, KALLINGAPARAMBIL, NOCHIMA, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT (PO), ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SHAJI SEBASTIAN. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, CENTRAL OFFICER, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI PIN-400021 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KALAMASSERY BRANCH, PREMIER TYRES JUNCTION, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683104. 3. C.K.BABU, BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KALAMASSERY BRANCH, PREMIER TYRES JUNCTION, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-683104. ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.30468 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order, through which the 'Secured Over Draft' facility allowed to the petitioner by the second respondent Bank is cancelled assigning the reason that the sanctioned period of one year had expired on 8.6.2010 and that the petitioner had failed to produce audited balance sheets with respect to the financial years ended on 31.3.2009 and on 31.3.2010. In Ext.P1, a further reason for cancellation of the facility mentioned is that a search report from the Registrar of Companies had revealed that the petitioner has defaulted to another Bank with respect to loan availed, which is classified as 'NPA' and a suit is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 2. According to the petitioner, the reason for cancellation of the facility mentioned in Ext.P1 is absolutely incorrect and baseless and the cancellation is done in violation of the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of W.P(C) No.30468 of 2010-G 2 India through various circulars. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the respondent Bank had received information regarding various facilities such as term loan, CCH facility, Overdrafts, Bank Guarantee etc. availed by the petitioner from another Bank and that subsequent to default in the operation of such facility, the said Bank had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Since the petitioner is a defaulter of huge amounts from another financial institution, the Bank is not favouring renewal of the facility, is the contention. 3. Considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the dispute does not come within the realm of jurisdiction under Article 226. Whether the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the facility availed from respondents 1 and 2 depends on various factors including the policy decisions of the respondent Bank. Challenge in this writ petition does not pertains to any statutory action taken by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner is not seeking to invoke any statutory right also. Therefore, I am not in a position to W.P(C) No.30468 of 2010-G 3 adjudicate upon the dispute to arrive at any conclusion. 4. Having confronted with the facts as stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to their rights to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum. 5. Hence, permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 order in appropriate proceedings before any appropriate forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab