IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 17225 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- M.A. HAROON, ANUS COTTAGE, VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE MINISTRTY, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17225 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the Bank, on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme introduced by the Government of India as per Ext. P4. 2. A statement has been filed by the Bank stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary remedy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of the very fact that without the knowledge or permission from the Bank, the petitioner has already sold the mortgaged property. They would also submit that the petitioner had given several cheques in repayment of the instalments of loan amount, which bounced in respect of which proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending. The further contention in the statement is that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P(C) No. 6317/2008 and this Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the Bank before 6-3-2008 and at the request of the petitioner, time to deposit the amount was extended also. But, he did not deposit the amount. Later on, he withdrew the writ petition on 6-6-2008 and now this writ petition has been filed claiming the benefit under the Agricultural Dept Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. It is also pointed out that more than Rs. 35 lakhs are due from the petitioner. The above said facts stated in the written statement are not W.P.C. No. 17225/2008 -: 2 :- disputed by the petitioner. In view of those admitted facts, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.