IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22445 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.RAJA RATHNAM, PAMMAVARA PARUTHIRATHALAKKAL THANIRA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELIAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI.RIJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, NEYYATTINKARA CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.417, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GOVT. OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP BLDGS., NEW DELHI. BY ASG SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.22445 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he availed of a loan for construction of a cattle shed and for cattle rearing. Default was committed and finally benefit of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was extended to the petitioner, requiring him to pay the balance amount due from him in three equal installments. If so paid, the liability would have been over by 30th of June, 2009. Admittedly payment was not made and now properties have been brought for sale and according to the petitioner sale is to take place on 10th of August, 2009. It is at this stage that this writ petition is filed. 2. On facts, I cannot find fault with the steps taken by the respondents for the reason that the petitioner is admittedly a defaulter. Added to this is the fact that the WP(c).No.22445/09 2 petitioner has not availed of the instalment facility granted as per Ext.P6. If so, the recovery proceedings are only to be upheld and I do so. Counsel submits that no notice was served in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Act 1984. However, apart from the vague averment in ground B, no evidence is produced to substantive the same. Therefore, I am not inclined to admit this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.22445/09 3