IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5981 of 2011(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. G. GEORGE, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, NAGANOLIL HOUSE, MURICKANAD, PULIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. KUSUMAM GEORGE, W/O.G. GEORGE, NAGANOLIL HOUSE, MURICKANAD, PULIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. MUTHOLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1631, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THEKKUMMURY, PULIYANNOOR.P.O, PIN - 686 573, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jkk P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5981 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners, who were husband and wife, had availed a loan from the first respondent bank way back in the year 1998. When the petitioners defaulted repayment of the loan, the bank instituted arbitration proceedings. In execution of the award passed by the Arbitrator, the property offered by the petitioners as security for the loan was brought to sale, sold and purchased by the first respondent bank itself on 28.2.2005. The petitioners thereupon filed CRP No.7279 of 2006 before the second respondent. The sale which was held on 28.2.2005 was confirmed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Meenachal by order dated 6.4.2005. A sale sannad was also executed and registered. The bank thereafter moved the Sub Court, Pala by filing E.P. No.106 of 2005 for delivery and delivery was ordered on 25.3.2006. These facts are discernible from Ext.P2. The petitioners have averred in this writ petition that though the first respondent was the successful bidder in the auction conducted on 28.2.2005, they are still in possession of the property which was sold in that auction. This writ petition is filed contending that though as early as on 19.10.2006, WPC No.5981/2011 2 the petitioners had submitted the original of Ext.P1 petition before the Joint Registrar of Kerala Co-operative Societies, Kottayam, requesting him to direct the first respondent bank to extend to them the benefits flowing from the one time settlement scheme then in force and to reconvey the property to them on payment of the amount due to the bank, till date, orders have not been passed thereon. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. Ext.P2 discloses that the bank has filed objections to the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P1. It is stated in Ext.P2 that the sale held on 28.2.2005 was confirmed on 6.4.2005 and sale sannad was also registered on 6.4.2005. It is also stated that possession of the property was delivered over to the bank on 25.3.2006. But Ext.P2 proceeds to state that after the bank became owner of the property, the general body of the bank that met on 28.5.2006 permitted the managing committee of the respondent bank to sell the property in public auction and that the request made by the bank to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) for prior permission to sell the property in terms of rule 54(2) of the WPC No.5981/2011 3 Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules is pending. 3. It is evident from the materials presently on record that the sale in favour of the first respondent bank in execution of the award passed against the petitioners was held on 28.2.2005. The sale was confirmed on 6.4.2005 and the sale sannad was also executed and registered and the property was delivered over to the bank on 25.3.2006. The bank has thereby became the owner of the property. Though Ext.P1 petition was filed on 19.10.2006 for the past more than four years the petitioners did not seek disposal of the said representation. It is only on 24.2.2011 that they approached this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon. In view of the fact that more than 5 years have passed after the sale in favour of the first respondent bank was held and confirmed, I would not have ordinarily granted the relief prayed for by the petitioners. However, the first respondent bank has in Ext.P2 objections filed by them to Ext.P1 petition stated that if the purchase amount together with interest and costs is paid, the bank is prepared to reconvey the property in the event of the Joint Registrar passing an order in that regard. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a WPC No.5981/2011 4 direction to the second respondent to consider the request made by the petitioners in Ext.P1 and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the second respondent receives a certified copy of this judgment, after notice to and affording the petitioners and the Secretary/President of the first respondent bank an opportunity of being heard. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.5981/2011 5 WPC No.5981/2011 6