IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 3398 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- PANJKAJAKSHAN,AGED 60 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN,VIJI SADANAM, ILLICHIRA P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, ALLEPPEY CARD BANK LTD NO.A 94 ALAPPUZHA. 2. ALLEPPEY CARD BANK LTD NO.A 94 ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3398/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 27.3.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DT. 19.12.07 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SIT RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.3398 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent. Service complete. 2. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the conditions imposed as per interim order dated 30.1.2008 were not complied with. Therefore, the interim order is not in force. It is also submitted that the sale has been held. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank. I find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings which have been initiated in terms of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Act on account of the failure to repay a loan availed from a Co-operative Bank governed by the provisions of that WPC.3398/08 Page numbers statute. There is also no sustainable ground in relation to the allegation of under-valuation etc. Hence, the writ petition fails. 4. At this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for one months' time to wipe off the outstandings. It is directed that if the petitioner remits the entire amounts with accruals and other outstandings within one month, the Bank may consider setting aside the sale or re-conveying the property, as may be found fit. The writ petition ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.