IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10444 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.NAZAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KAZIM RAWTHER, ELAVUNGAL PARAMBIL, MANGARAM KARAYIL, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR. 2. ABDUL RAHEEM, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, NAZEEM MANZIL, KALANJOOR P.O., ADOOR. 3. SHYLA BEEVI, W/O. ABDUL RAHEEM, NAZEEM MANZIL, KALANJOOR P.O., ADOOR. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA.P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER – 681 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA – 681 001. 3. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOODAL BRANCH, KOODAL.P.O., KOODA., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER – 681 009. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. T.P. PRADEEP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10444/2011-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AWARD IN R.P. NO.55/2009 DTD. 3/11/2009 PASSED BY THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ISSUED BY THE R.2. BANK. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 01/10/2010 UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUNALUR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KALANJOOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10444 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Considering the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 2. However, based on the persuasive submissions of the counsel for the petitioners, further steps for dispossession was stayed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 30.4.2011 and a further sum of Rs.75,000/- on or ebfore 25.5.2011. Subsequently, on the basis of an application made by the petitioner, the time stipulated for payment was extended till 25.6.2011, making it clear that no further extension will be granted under any circumstances and on failure the writ petition will be dismissed. 3. It is conceded that the writ petitioners could not 2 W.P.(C).No.10444 of 2011 fully comply with the conditions stipulated. Learned counsel made submissions, for entertaining this writ petition for considering the challenges raised against the proceedings which is impugned. 4. Considering the alternative remedy as well as considering the failure in compliance of the conditions stipulated, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to invoke statutory remedy, if any available. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to liberty of the petitioners as mentioned above, if any available under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/