IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15609 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.V.MOHAMMEDALI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SAHANA STORES, 7/159, GOOLIKADAVU, AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, SRI.R.SREEHARI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGALI BRANCH, AGALI POST, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGALI, (CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, PALAKKAD). 3. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15609 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 notice issued by the 3rd respondent, particularly questioning the authority and competency of the said respondent for pursuing the steps in connection with realization of the due amount invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. 2. The petitioner had availed a loan from the first respondent Bank and subsequently it happened to be declared as 'NPA' because of the default from the part of the petitioner in effecting repayments as scheduled. The first respondent Bank in the course of the proceedings pursued under the SARFAESI Act filed a petition before the District Collector/Executive Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, which however happened to be forwaded to the 3rd respondent, who issued Ext.P4 notice, which in turn is subjected to challenge, for want of authority. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank concedes that the 3rd respondent does not have any power or jurisdiction to deal with the matter and that the appropriate authority can only be the 4th respondent, before whom the necessary proceedings were filed by the Bank. WP (C) No. 15609 of 2009 : 2 : 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the limited prayer in so far as the present case is concerned, is that, some breathing time might be given to the petitioner so as to enable him to wipe off the entire liability. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on instructions submits that, the liability as on date comes more than Rs. 16 lakhs.. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rupees Five lakhs within one month and the entire balance shall be cleared by way of six equal monthly installments commencing from the 10th of August, 2009. Till such time, the coercive proceedings taken against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P4 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in clearing the liability as aforesaid, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd