IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 34786 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SARA, AGED 68, W/O.LATE THIMOTHY, AMBAKKADAN HOUSE, TC 15/1405, PARAVATTANI NH, CHUNGAM, P.O.OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR 2. FATIMA NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.R-224, EAST FORT, THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R2 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34786/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DT 23.7.91. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DT 16.6.2003. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RE-CONVEY OF THE PROPERTY DT 16.3.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.12857/2008 DT 21.5.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT 27.6.2007. EXT.P8: SERIES LEDGER COPIES OF VARIOUS LOANS AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEIR SON ARE PRODUCED. EXT.P9: APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE RE- CONVEYANCE OF AUCTIONED PROPERTY OF ANOTHER BANK. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 24596/2007. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 4033/2006 DATED 2.3.2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34786 OF 2008 (N) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had availed of a loan from the 2nd respondent Bank offering immovable property as security. Default was committed and that led the Bank to file ARC 4357/98 and 4358/98. Award was passed by the Arbitrator. Liability was not discharged and hence execution proceedings were initiated. The proceedings culminated in an auction that was held on 17/12/2002, in which the Bank itself was the successful bidder. 2. Petitioner did not seek to have the sale invalidated in any manner provided under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Finally, after completion of all procedural formalities, sale certificate was issued in the name of the Bank on 26/10/2004. Immediately thereafter or even within a reasonable period thereafter, petitioner did not even make a request to the Bank for re-conveying the property to her. It was only on 12/6/2008, she requested for re-conveyance. Orders were not passed by the Bank and thereupon the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) NO.12857/08. WPC 34786/08 :2 : 3. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 21/5/2008 requiring the Bank to consider the request made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the Board of Directors of the Bank and by its resolution passed on 26/6/2008, the Bank resolved not to accede to the request made by the petitioner for re-conveyance. This decision of the Bank was conveyed to the petitioner as per Ext.P7. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed seeking to compel the Bank to re-convey the property. 4. Bank has filed a counter affidavit, in which, it contends that it was justified in initiating execution proceedings pursuant to the arbitration award it had obtained. It is stated that even after the auction was held and confirmed in favour of the Bank, the petitioner did not move for avoiding the sale as provided in the Act. It is also stated that even thereafter, the petitioner did not, within a reasonable time, make any request for re-conveyance of the property and that only a belated request was made in 2008 in this behalf. It is therefore stated that the request made lacks bonafides and at any rate the commercial interest of the Bank will be adversely affected if the property is re-conveyed to her at this WPC 34786/08 :3 : belated stage. 5. The contention regarding the adverse effect on the commercial interest of the Bank is sought to be contradicted by the counsel for the petitioner by offering to compensate the Bank if the Bank agrees to re-convey the property to her. True, if the Bank is now asked to re-convey the property as claimed by the petitioner, certainly that will affect its commercial interests, it having invested the money as early as in 2002. 6. Taking into account the offer made by the petitioner to compensate the Bank, and as the primary interest and the objective of the Bank is only to safeguard its own monetary resources, I feel the ends of justice will be subserved if the Bank is asked to consider the request of the petitioner, provided the petitioner makes a written offer to the Bank undertaking to pay the market value of the property. In such an event, there is no reason why the Bank should not consider such an offer . 7. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to approach the Bank offering to pay the market value of the property, in which event, it is directed that untrammelled by Ext.P7, which was already taken by the Bank and the stand taken in the counter WPC 34786/08 :4 : affidavit, the Bank must have a fresh look at the request and a fresh decision shall be taken without any further delay in this matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp