IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 351 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1920/2008 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- A.XAVIER, S/O.ANCHALOSE, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT AJANTHA HOUSE, PULLUVILA P.O., PULLUVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOVAR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BHASURAM COMPLEX, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 525. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REGION-II, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOVAR BRANCH, BHASURAM COMPLEX,POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525. BY SC - SBT ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.351 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, This writ appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1920 of 2008 dated 30th January, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition and has permitted the respondent Bank to proceed with the recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant. 2. When the matter was posted before the court for admission, considering the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also taking note of the affidavit of undertaking filed by the appellant, we had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on or before the 29th of February, 2008 to find out the bonafides of the appellant's grievances as well as his ability to discharge the liability towards the Bank. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would inform us today that the appellant is not in a position to comply with the orders and directions issued by this court. 4. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the State Government and also to keep in abeyance all recovery proceedings in conformity with the orders passed in Exts. P4 and P5. 5. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed by the respondents that the appellant had taken the loan from the Bank not as a fisherman but as a business man to buy fishing trawlers for fishing activities. Exts.P4 and P5 orders WA. 351/2008. 2 pertain to the loan sanctioned to a fisherman and not to a business man. In view of that, the appellant cannot claim any benefit under Exts.P4 and P5 orders. Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. 6. Having gone through Exts.P4 and P5 orders issued by the State Government and also the orders issued by the learned Single Judge, we are of the firm opinion that since the appellant is not a fisherman, he cannot claim the benefit under Exts. P4 and P5 orders issued by the State Government. Therefore, we do not see any error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which would call for our interference. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.