IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14178 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.M.RINEESH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.H.M.RAFEEQUE, 23/576A, VALIYAPARAMBIL, MADURA COMPANY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682 006. BY ADV. SRI.DILISH JOHN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. THROUGH GOVT.PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UCO BANK, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN BRANCH, PIN-682 002. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN, R2 BY SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14178/2011-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AUCTION ADVERTISEMENT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 21/04/11. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 14178 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Act”), initiated by the respondents for recovery of the loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. 2. This Court has passed the following interim orders in this writ petition: 25.05.2011: “Standing Counsel for second respondent (sic) directed to get instructions. Meanwhile confirmation of sale if any takes place on the basis of Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on or before 15.06.2011. Post on 20.06.2011.” 21.06.2011: “Extension sought for is opposed stiffly by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. However, considering the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the IA, time stipulated for payment is extended till 5.7.11 making it clear that no further extension will be granted under any circumstance and on failure the writ petition will be dismissed. Post on 8.7.11.” 8.7.2011: “Post next week at the request of the counsel for the petitioner. Interim order is not extended.” The learned counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner has not complied with the directions in the interim orders. The counsel for w.p.c.14178/11 2 the petitioner is not present. The counsel for the bank is present. It is settled law that proceedings under the Act have to be challenged in an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Courts entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, especially when the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge