IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10119 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DEVASSY P.A., AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. ANTHONY, PALIYEKKARA HOUSE, CHIYARAM, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. INDIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER, INDIAN EMBASSY, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SME BRANCH, PATTURAYICKAL, TRICHUR, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC FOR SBT ASST. S.G., SRI. PARAMESWRAAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10119 OF 2008 D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's son had availed of a loan from the respondent bank and repayment is in default. It is stated that thereafter he left for Australia giving a power of attorney in favour of his brother P.D. Jaison. It is stated that when the default continued, the bank issued Annexure-2 letter in his Australian address, but, however the letter returned with an endorsement 'left address/Unknown'. 2. Thereupon, the bank addressed the Consulate General of India at Australia by Annexure-4 and an officer of the Consulate General in turn made enquiries and gave Annexures A5 and A6. It is stated in Annexure-5 that they were able to contact the defaulter who had given them Annexure A6 letter, admitting the debt and agreeing to settle the liability. It is stated by the bank that thereafter defaulter himself came to the bank during July, 2007 and W.P.(C) No. 10119 OF 2008 -2- gave Annexure-7 letter, requesting for the benefit of one time settlement scheme and undertaking to discharge the liability. 3. Standing Counsel for the Bank submits that this is all what they have done. The allegations in the writ petition that Australian police was sent to his place and that there is a threat to repatriate him to India is denied by the Bank. 4. On behalf of the 1st respondent also submission was made that on the request of the bank, Vice-Consulate General made enquiries and furnished the details of the defaulter. According to them nothing more has been done by them. 5. From the facts as stated, it can be seen that the allegations of the petitioner that at the instance of the bank his son has been harassed by the Australian Police and that steps are being taken to expatriate him to India is totally unfounded. 6. In view of this, there is absolutely no basis or justification for the reliefs directing the 1st respondent not to interfere with the financial dealings of the petitioner's son and the W.P.(C) No. 10119 OF 2008 -3- 2nd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful residence and profession of his son in Australia cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-