IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23666 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M/S.LAKEVIEW AYURVEDIC RESORTS & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD,(LARC RESORTS) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHANDY MATHEW, 2. CHANDY MATHEW, MANAGING DIRECTOR,LARC PVT LTD., OTTACKAL P.O.,THENMALA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE, SRI.N.SREEKUMAR (ELAMAKKARA), SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, CO-OPERATIVE TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . R1 & R2 BY SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP. BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 23666 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:- 1) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 2) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to fix fresh reserve price considering the fair value notified by the State Govt. and Ext.P6 valuation certificate. 3) to issue such other order or directions which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fixation of the 'reserve price' in connection with the sale of the concerned property over which security interest was created while availing the loan from respondent Bank is not correct or in order and hence that the sale scheduled tomorrow is liable to be intercepted. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the W.P.(C) No. 23666/2010 2 respondent Bank as well. 4. From the materials available on record, it is revealed that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 10480 of 2010 seeking to intercept the coercive proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court permitted the petitioners to clear the liability in a phased manner; whereby the petitioners were directed to satisfy 1/4th of the amount as then claimed, within one month and to pay the balance within six months. It was also made clear that if any default was committed in satisfying the amount, it was open to the respondents to proceed with further steps in accordance with law for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners could not satisfy the liability as stipulated in Ext.P0 judgment, under which circumstances the bank proceeded with further steps, leading to issuance of Ext.P11 sale notice. It is stated by the petitioners that they are put W.P.(C) No. 23666/2010 3 to irreparable loss and hardship because of the wrong fixation of the 'reserve price', which hence is sought to be intercepted. 6. Going by the sequence of events, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners are having any genuine grievance, with regard to the fixation of the 'reserve price', it is always open for them to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the concerned forum, raising necessary pleadings and adducing evidence. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mn.