IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1915 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RANJINI.R,W/O.C.M.KISHORE,H.NO.12/1280, CHANIPARAMBIL CHULLIKAL,COCHIN-5,NOW RESIDING AT MOOLAYIL HOUSE,AYYAN MASTER LANE,PANAYAPPILLI, COCHIN-2. BY ADVS. MR.T.MADHU MR.SURAJ KRISHNA.B.S RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY, COCHIN. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHIEF MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD BRANCH,ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN R5 BY ADV. MR.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 1915 of 2010-L ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan from the fifth respondent, but the same could not be repaid on time, as per the terms agreed. It was in the said circumstances, that the bank made a requisition to the revenue authorities; pursuant to which Exts.P1 and P2 notices have been issued by the respondents 1 to 3, which are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now residing in a rented house and that the petitioner does not own any property in her name. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from enforcing Exts.P1 and P2; simultaneously seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation preferred before him, stating that the liability to the bank will be discharged as and when money is obtained to the petitioner. Considering the nature of the contentions raised in the writ W.P(C) No. 1915 of 2010-L 2 petition, it is obvious that there is absolutely no dispute as to the liability to the bank or as to the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2. No legal issue has also been raised challenging the proceedings taken by the respondents. As noted above, the only contention is that the petitioner does not have any property as on date and that the liability will be cleared to the bank as and when her financial position improves. Taking note of the pleadings and submissions as above, this Court does not find any merit or bonafides in the writ petition. The Writ Petition fails and interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab