IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15299 of 2009(F) -------------------------- CMP.385/2009 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RAZIYA BEEVI, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.A.M.RAFI, VIKAS NAGAR - 156, KARAMBALIL HOUSE, POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SEENATH BEEVI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER, SEENATH MANZIL, VADAKKE VILA, AYATHIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. NABEEZA BEEVI, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER, SEENATH MANZIL, VADAKKE VILA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.960, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.960, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR. N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MS. D.P.RENU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15299 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are guarantors to the loan availed by one Mr. A.M. Rafi and A.M. Aslam from the respondent Bank. The petitioners are aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act. The only prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to consider Ext.P3 representation and to pass appropriate orders, giving 6 months' time to clear the liability and also to direct the first respondent to provide the benefit of 'OTS'. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the course and attitude being pursued by the petitioners are very much liable to be deprecated, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners have not chosen to reveal the identity or connection with principal borrower by name Mr. Rafi, who is none other than the husband of the first petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the way in which the connection has been described in Ext.P3 is only that the petitioners believe, that they are close relatives of the principal borrower. The learned counsel further submits that, eventhough the loan amount was to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs, nothing was repaid either by the borrower or by the guarantors WP (C) No. 15299 of 2009 : 2 : and the liability as on date, will cross more than Rs. 20 lakhs. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, it cannot but be held that the steps taken by the respondents invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act are in order, which hence does not call for any interference. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the proceedings, if the sale is pursued causing infringement to any of the statutory prescriptions, by availing the remedy under Section 17 of the Act. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd