IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No. 2262 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33854/2008 Dated 18/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT//PETITIONER ----------------------------------- M/S THAYYIL PHOTOGRAPHICS PVT LTD., P.O. POOLAMANNA, (VIA) THUVVUR, MALAPPURAM DIST, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.THAYYIL AHAMMAD MUSTHAFA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) & SRI.G.MOHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOZHIKODE REGIONAL OFFICE, COLOMBO COMPLEX, M.M. ALI ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER. 3. KERALA STE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. BY STANDING COUNSEL. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2262 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.33854 of 2008 dated 18.11.08. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition. 2. Petitioner had availed a loan from the 1st respondent Bank and has committed default in repayment of the amount. The Bank has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (“Act” for short) by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner has filed his objections to the said notice. 3. The petitioner was before this Court on an earlier occasion. This Court had directed the respondent Bank to consider the application filed by the petitioner for One Time Settlement. The Bank has considered the request of the petitioner and has issued an endorsement to him dated 11.10.08. The petitioner, in the writ petition filed, calls in the question primarily Ext.P5 endorsement issued by the respondents dated 11.10.08. However, the interim relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ WA No. 2262 of 2008 -:2:- petition is to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is, that, he has paid several instalments after taking loan from the Bank. The petitioner also contends, that, the respondent Bank has not granted the benefit of One Time Settlement as in the case of one Sri.Sundar Das, Kannur Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. 5. The learned Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground, that, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to waive the benefit granted to one debtor or the same benefit should be extended to another person, since those are matters require to be considered in the realm of commercial interest of the lending establishment. The learned Single Judge has also observed in his order, that, if, for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act issued by the respondent Bank, he has to approach appropriate forum for appropriate reliefs. Accordingly, the learned Judge has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner has presented this writ appeal. 6. Sri.M.K.Damodaran, learned Senior Counsel, would submit, that, the learned Judge was not justified in rejecting the writ petition and, according to the learned counsel, the benefit that was extended to one Sri.Sundar Das, Kannur Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. ought to have been extended to the appellant also. WA No. 2262 of 2008 -:3:- 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was before this Court on an earlier occasion by filing a WP(C) No. 14485 of 2008. The writ petition has been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondent Bank to consider the application filed by the petitioner for grant of One Time Settlement benefit. The Bank, by Ext.P5 endorsement dated 11.10.08, has informed the petitioner, that, the term loan account of the petitioner will be settled by allowing the waiver of entire penal interest in accordance with the One Time Settlement scheme followed by the Bank. That only means, that, the Bank has considered the request of the petitioner as directed by this Court in WP(C) No.14485 of 2008 and has informed the petitioner to pay off the amounts to settle his term loan account. Even before issuing the aforesaid endorsement, the respondent Bank had already initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act. What was expected of the petitioner was to file his objections to the said notice, by raising all his grievances, if any. It was then for the Bank to pass an order under Section 13(4) of the Act as required by the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Bank, what has to be done by him is to question it before the appropriate forum as provided under the Act itself. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the learned Judge, in our view, has rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error, whatsoever, WA No. 2262 of 2008 -:4:- in the orders passed by the learned Judge. Therefore the Writ Appeal requires to be dismissed and it is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE ttb/DK