IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 9983 of 2010(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE P.T.KANNAN NAIR, SRUTHI COMPLEX, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE .K, SRI.LIJU. M.P. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CENTURY COMPLEX, MATHA KOIL STREET, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD-1, REP.BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. K.SANTHAKUMAR, KACHERIPADAM KALAM, VITHINASSERRY, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,S.C, R3 BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9983/2010-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ONE KAVITHA, W/O. MAHALINGAM, PANNIPERUMTHALA, CHITTUR TALUK. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 01/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 436/2009 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 03/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION CAME IN `MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY DTD. 24/01/2010 (PALAKKAD EDITION). EXT.P.8: ADVERTISEMENT MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 08/02/2010 (PALAKKAD EDITION). EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20/03/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT RECEIVED ON SENDING EXT.P.9. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 28/11/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FINANCE. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 12/02/2004 SENT BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 23/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 17/07/2009 SENT BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION DTD. 01/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.3. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 16/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 17/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. W.P.(C). NO.9983/2010-W: EXT.R1.H: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 23/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.R1.I: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 245/2009 REGISTETED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.J: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 25/08/2009 IN W.P. 24357/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R1.K: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR REFERRED TO IN EXT.P.8. EXT.R1.L: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 31/08/2009 ALONG WITH CHEQUE SUBMITTED BY THE R.3. EXT.R1.M: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9983 OF 2010(W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T J. Chelameswar, CJ The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows; (i) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P2 to P10. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit as contemplated in Exts.P7 and P8. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of Ext.P9 in a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court after having heard the petitioner and in the meanwhile to keep pending all eviction proceedings against the petitioner in furtherance of Exts.P3.” 2. The petitioner availed of a loan from the first respondent for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs in the year 1995. The exact terms and conditions upon which the loan was availed by the petitioner are not discernible from the pleadings in the writ petition. At paragraph 4 of the writ petition a vague statement is made by the petitioner that “in these circumstances, some dues were come towards repayment of the loan amount, in favour of the respondent WPC.No. 9983/2010 :2 : No.1”. The petitioner does not specify what exactly is the amount due and outstanding. A further vague statement is that “availing this situation, they initiated proceedings against the petitioner.“ Just to demonstrate the shabby pleadings, we extract the following portion of the pleadings. “In the light of Ext.P1 and other connected documents, paying of the loan amount and the accrued interest thereon by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1, was not a matter at all. Since the respondent No.1 began to show a different attitude and attempts were made to take possession of the property, the said agreements were not respected by the parties, in effect the petitioner was put to irreparable loss and injury. “ 3. It appears from the pleadings of the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the property of the petitioner was brought to sale by the first respondent, in exercise of his statutory authority vested under the first respondent, under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The first respondent is admittedly a `Financial Corporation', as defined under the above mentioned Act. The 3rd respondent became the successful bidder, who offered to pay an amount of Rs. 39.5 lakhs for the property. The sale proceedings were held on 16.7.2009. The petitioner was WPC.No. 9983/2010 :3 : once again put on notice dated 17.7.2009 calling upon to remit an amount of Rs.39.5 lakhs in case he desires to retain the property. Since the said notice did not evoke any response from the petitioner, the sale in favour of the 3rd respondent was confirmed on 1.8.2009. 4. However, the entire factual details are suppressed by the petitioner, in a vague pleading, at page 3 of the writ petition the petitioner stated as follows; “In the meantime the respondent No.1 made attempts to sell out the properties, after taking symbolic possession on 10.2.2004. Almost up to 30.6.2009, the petitioner was not in station. Later on his return, the petitioner's physical occupation of the building was continued. While so the respondents No.1 and 2 made all attempts to sell out the property and it is alleged that the property was ultimately sold out to the respondent No.3 herein.” 5. It is obvious from the above extracted pleadings that the possession of the property was taken by the first respondent which the petitioner describes as symbolic possession to suit his convenience. Coupled with that the admission of the petitioner that “almost up to 30.6.2009, the petitioner was not in station. Later on his return, the petitioner's physical occupation of the building was continued.” In our opinion this is a statement deliberately made to WPC.No. 9983/2010 :4 : mislead the court. It is in the above mentioned factual background the instant writ petition came to be filed with the prayers which are already extracted. 6. On the other hand, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 a counter affidavit is filed, wherein the details of the various opportunities given to the petitioner for settling the account of the first respondent both before taking possession of the property as well as after taking possession of the property are set out. 7. The second prayer by which the petitioner claims a declaration that he is entitled to the benefit of Exts.P7 and P8 dated 24.1.2010 and 8.2.2010, which purported to give some concessions in favour of the borrowers from whom amounts are outstanding to the Corporation. It may be stated that both the above mentioned documents are dated subsequent to the date of the sale and confirmation of the property of the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent. In the circumstances, apart from the other reasons the above mentioned documents have no application to the case of the petitioner. 8. We have already demonstrated above that the writ petitioner approached this court without disclosing the full facts. WPC.No. 9983/2010 :5 : He also made misleading statements in the writ petition and did not approach this court with clean hands. On that ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. We are of the unhesitant opinion that this instant writ petition is a brazen abuse of the process of law and the insolent of this court. Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. (J. CHELAMESWAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/