IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4474 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TESSY JOSEPH,W/O.JOSEPH, 1/185 MUTTAM, THAIKATTUKARA PO,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683 106. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, REP.BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, K.A.P.COMPLEX, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.683 101 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER OF INDIAN BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, P.B.NO.3573, PULLEPADY JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR,CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI-400001 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. R1& R2 BY ADV. S. EASWARAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR INDIAN BANK R4 BY ADV.T.P.M IBRAHIM KHAN, ASGI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Ke C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 4474 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking direction for disposal of Exts.P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioner before the Reserve Bank of India as well as before the Government of India respectively, and till then to restrain steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). 2. The petitioner along with her husband availed a loan from the 1st respondent Bank which was defaulted payment, and the SARFAESI proceedings were initiated as early as in the year 2008. Steps taken under section 13(4) was challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by invoking section 17(1). During pendency of the matter the petitioner along with her husband filed WP(C).No.25809/2008 before this court seeking direction to permit regularisation of the account by payment of the entire amounts over due in the account. The Bank opposed the prayer stating that the husband of the petitioner had already entered WP(C) .4474/2011 2 into an agreement for sale of the property. However while dismissing the above said writ petition through Ext.P1 judgment, liberty was reserved to the parties to pursue the mater which is pending before the DRT. 3. It is evident from Ext.P2, which is an order passed by the DRT on an IA, that during pendency of the securitisation application the DRT had granted interim stay subject to conditions and the petitioner and her husband had failed to comply with those conditions. However the application which was disposed of through Ext.P2 order was filed seeking the very same reliefs for permitting regularisation. In Ext.P2 the DRT found that it is not a matter coming within the jurisdiction vested under section 17(1) and that the Tribunal could not issue any such direction for permitting regularisation. 4. It is further noticed that when steps for dispossession of the petitioner was initiated subsequent to Ext.P2 order, the petitioner along with her husband again approached this court in WP(C).1670/2011. The said writ petition was dismissed on 28.1.2011 observing that Ext.P2 could not be interfered with by this court in exercise of power vested under WP(C) .4474/2011 3 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the remedy provided under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. However right of the petitioner to invoke appellate remedy against Ext.P2 (Ext.P7 in that writ petition) was reserved . 5. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent Bank is at an obligation to regularise the account by virtue of the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India and if such relief is not granted the Reserve Bank is vested with powers to issue direction under section 35 (a) of the Banking Regulations Act 1949. It is the further contention that the Central Government is also bound to look into the grievance as voiced in Ext.P4. 6. While considering the relief sought for in the writ petition I notice that, merely because the petitioner had submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations, which were seen dispatched only on 5.2.2011, coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act could not be interdicted with. This is especially becuase of the provisions contained in section 34 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act. A direction from this court for disposal of those representations is not warranted, since those representations are not any statutory petitions nor the petitioner WP(C) .4474/2011 4 is claiming enforcement of any statutory right. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .4474/2011 5