IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 5571 of 2008(L) PETITIONER: SMT.P.SHABEENA, AGED 28, W/O.C.K.ASHARAF, PROPRETRIX, M/S. K.V.K. MARKETING CENTRE NOW RESIDING ASHRAF MANZIL, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE SREEKANDAPURAM BRANCH KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCE), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR. *ADDL.R4. T. LISSA OF ANUGRAHA, PERINGADI P.O., NEW MAHE. *ADDL.R5. SUMIT.R.V, NANDANAM P.O., PERINGADI, NEW MAHE. *ADDL.R6. KOOVAPURATH AMSOOTTY, AYISHA MANZIL, YASEEN PALLI ROAD, MADAI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.3169 OF 2008 DATED 06.03.2008. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. SRI. SATHISH NINAN, R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5571 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this case, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. When sale was notified in 2006. Petitioner moved the DRT by filing SA No.8/07 and that was rejected by Ext.P1. Thereupon, petitioner filed appeal before the DRAT and that appeal was dismissed for default by Ext.P2 dated 28/9/07. Long thereafter, the Bank notified the mortgaged assets for sale and the sale was scheduled on 29/1/2008. At about that time along with an application to condone delay, petitioner filed Ext.P5 before the DRAT seeking to review Ext.P2 order and there has not been any progress since then. Still later, this writ petition has been filed challenging the steps taken by the Bank for sale of the property which as noticed above was scheduled on 29/1/2008. It is now submitted by the counsel for the Bank that sale has taken place on that day itself. WPC 5571/08 :2 : 2. In my view, it is not open to the petitioner to resort to parallel proceedings at the same time, i.e, before the DRAT and before this court in a writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that sale is an independent event and that he is entitled to challenge the same before this Court. I cannot agree to this submission made by the counsel. As already noticed, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default as early as on 28/9/07. Although along with a petition for condoning delay, petitioner has sought review of the said order, he does not appear to have made sincere endeavour to get the review petition posted or heard. The sale that has now taken place on 29/1/2008 is only a consequence of Ext.P2 order and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to independently challenge the sale in a writ petition filed in this court. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp