IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8149 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AMRITHAKUMARI, W/O.SHARANGAPANI, DANESH BHAVAN, KIDAPRAM, PERINGALAM, MANROTHURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR, SMT.A.R.SINDHU. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, RECOVERY CELL KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 307. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ANCHALAMMOOD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 307. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 8149 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 8149 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice and the demand raised for payment of arrears in a loan account which was availed by the petitioner from respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P1 the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 request seeking to consider waiver of interest and other expenses to the possible extent and to permit settlement of the account under the 'one time settlement scheme'. The petitioner inter alia seek direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P2 and to take a decision thereof. 2. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is noticed that the issue pertaining to the demand now raised comes within the realm of contractual obligations arising out of the loan transaction. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from respondents 2 and 3 with respect to the settlement proposed. Ext.P2 is not a 2 W.P.(C).No. 8149 of 2011 representation submitted under any statutory provisions, nor it is a representation seeking to enforce any legal right vested on the petitioner. Therefore, I find no reason to invoke jurisdiction vested on this Court under Article 226. However, it will be left open to the petitioner to pursue remedy on the basis of Ext.P2 before respondents 2 and 3. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/