IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12772 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- TROOSAN K.A., AGED 32, S/O.ANTONY, KATTIPARAMBAN, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., PALLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY, SRI.ADEEP ANWAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE VELLANIKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NO.545E, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, VELLANIKKARA/VILVATTOM GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 5. BIJU, S/O.FRANCIS, KATTIPARAMBIL, MADATHARA DESOM, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 6. SAMSON, S/O.FRANCIS, KATTIPARAMBIL, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 7. V.K.SAJIVAN, S/O.KUMARAN, VALIYAVALAPPIL, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 8. LAUNA, S/O.KURIAN, BUSINESS, KULANGARA, PANDIPARAMBU DESOM, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12772 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had stood as guarantor for respondents 5 to 8 in a loan transaction. Respondents 5 to 8 had borrowed money from the Service Co-operative Bank, Vellanikkara, the third respondent. However, the amounts were not repaid. According to the petitioner, without initiating any action against respondents 5 to 8, the third respondent initiated action against the petitioner and his properties for the recovery of the amounts due from respondents 5 to 8. The petitioner also has a case that he was not served with any notice in the proceedings initiated against him, by the third respondent. Since he was not served with any notice, the petitioner could not initiate any action for settling the matter also. 2. Finally, the properties of the petitioner having an extent of 1.450 acres and 1.19 acres were brought to sale. Thereupon, the petitioner personally went to respondents 3 and 4 and submitted his objections to the proceedings. wpc No.12772/2010 2 Respondents 3 and 4 also realised their mistake and have adjourned the proceedings for sale. According to the petitioner, no further date has been notified for the sale. 3. The petitioner therefore submitted a proposal for settlement of the entire issue and the private sale of a portion of the property, which according to the petitioner would be sufficient to pay off the entire debt. The petitioner somehow wanted to resolve the matter permanently. However, he complains that no action has been taken by the 4th respondent on his proposal till date. It is submitted that his petition evidenced herein by Ext.P4 is still pending consideration of respondents 3 and 4. If the same is considered favourably, he would be able to discharge the entire liability, without any difficulty. However, he apprehends that respondents 3 and 4 would proceed against the petitioner's property, without passing any orders on Ext.P4, under the influence of respondents 5 to 8. Therefore, he prays for appropriate directions to dispose of Ext.P4. 4. In view of the limited relief that is sought for by the petitioner, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to wpc No.12772/2010 3 the respondents or to consider the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition. It is sufficient that petitioners 3 and 4 are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, expeditiously. 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P4, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate before selling the properties of the petitioner that was notified for sale as per Ext.P3, by rescheduling the date of auction. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/