IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32543 of 2009(K) -------------------------- CMP.6613/2009 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MR. M.J. JACOB, AGED 50, S/O. M.V.JOHN, MANNAPARAMBIL, PUNNAPRA P.O. ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK, REGINAL OFFICE, SREE RAJA RAJESWARI BUILDINGS,CHURCH ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. 2. BRANCH MANAGER FEDERAL BANK LTD, CONVENT SQUARE BRANCH ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, MR.L.RAM MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 32543 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 13/11/2009, the coercive steps taken by the bank were intercepted, on condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 30/11/2009. The time to comply with the said condition was extended further, till 31/12/2009, as per order dated 4/12/2009 in I.A.15282/2009. When the matter came up for further consideration on 4/1/2010, there was no representation for the petitioner. It came up again on 7/1/2010 and since the condition was not satisfied completely, it was observed and ordered by this Court that the interim order was no more there. The matter came up again on 15/1/2010 and thereafter today as well, when there is no representation for the petitioner. 2. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find -2- it necessary to keep the proceedings pending, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; more so, when there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner if aggrieved in any manner. 3. Accordingly, interference is declined and this writ petition is dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) nl