IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17444 of 2010(E) -------------------------- CMP.477/2010 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- HABEEB MUHAMMED, S/O. MUHAMMED KASSIM, AGED 41,PROPRIETOR, ROYAL BAKERS, K.P.II/123-B8, NOORANIYA MANZIL, PANDAKASALA MARKET RAOD,KATTAKKADA 695572, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. MR. R.T.PRADEEP MR. V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER /CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MR. K.M.ANEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 17444 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the amounts due under a loan transaction. 2. When t he matter came up consideration on 4.6.2010, 'status quo' was ordered to be maintained to enable the petitioner to arrange some private sale, which was extended further on 17.6.2010 and 23.6.2010. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on 6.7.2010, it was ordered as follows: “The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two more weeks time as the last chance to finalize the steps for causing the property to be sold by way of private sale and to have the funds remitted against the loan account; simultaneously adding that no further enlargement of time will be sought for and than on failure, the respondent Bank can very well proceed against the property to be sold in public auction. The said submission is recorded. Post after two weeks. Status quo is extended till that date.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner could not honour the commitment made before this Court while seeking to have the interim order extended on 6.7.2010, in spite of enlargement of time. W.P. (C) No. 17444 of 2010 : 2 : In the above said circumstances, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the the Constitution of India. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with law.` P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd