IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20490 of 2010(I) -------------------------- SA.586/2009 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.S.SIMON, S/O. SCARIA, AGED 45 YEARS, KOONAMMACKAL HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SCARIA, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 90 YEARS, KOONAMMACKAL HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. JOSEPH, S/O. THOMMAN, AGED 85 YEARS, MADATHIL HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4334, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, IDUKKI, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., PIN-685 602. 3. AUTHORIZED OFFICER (UNDER SARFAESI ACT), THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4334, HEAD OFFICE, IDUKKI, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., PIN-685 602. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. GOERGE VADAKKEL. BY ADV. MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 20490 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners had availed an overdraft facility of Rs.5 lakhs from the second respondent Bank in March 2000 on the strength of two items of the the properties. The petitioners admittedly turned to be defaulters; under which circumstance, the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which made the petitioners to challenge the same by filing S.A. 586 of 2009 before the DRT as borne by Ext. P1, wherein several contentions have been taken. It is the case of the petitioners that interim order has been passed by the DRT whereby the steps taken by the Bank has been intercepted as borne by Ext. P3. The contention of the petitioners as stated in para 6 of the Writ Petition is that, during the pendency of the above proceedings I.A.No. 1244 of 2010 (Ext.P7) was filed by the respondent Bank to vacate the interim order, which was posted for hearing on 10.06.2010; on which date, there was no representation for the petitioners and hence the interim order granted in favour of the petitioners was vacated, which in turn is W.P.(C) No. 20490 OF 2010 2 under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, referring to the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition submits that, the property concerned is an 'agricultural land' and the proceedings being pursued by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act are not liable to be proceeded further by virtue of the mandate under Section 31(g) and 31(i) of the Act. Several other contentions have also been raised stating that the petitioners are caused to be evicted from the premises today afternoon, which made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submits that the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition do not keep the right track of truth. It is stated that, pursuant to the steps taken by the Bank by filing the petition under Section 14 of the Act before the concerned C.J.M. Court, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to render assistance to take over physical possession of the properties, pursuant to which, physical possession was taken over on 04.12.2009. It was thereafter, the petitioners obtained an interim order from the Tribunal intercepting further proceedings, though a copy of the said order W.P.(C) No. 20490 OF 2010 3 has not been produced before this Court. After obtaining the interim order as above, the petitioners and some others under them, took the law in their hands and trespassed into the premises and broke open the lock; took back physical possession of the premises and let it out to somebodly else, enjoying the rent being collected therefrom. In the said circumstances, the respondent Bank was constrained to file I.A. 1244 of 2010 before the DRT seeking for vacating the interim order and also to restore possession of the property. The said I.A., Ext.P7 was posted for hearing on 10.06.2010, as admitted by the petitioners themselves in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition and the petitioners did not appear before the DRT on the date of hearing. Absolutely no reason has been stated as to the absence, nor is there any case for the petitioners that the case was caused to be adjourned by filing any application in this regard. The Tribunal took note of the sequence of events and allowed the I.A. on 10.06.2010. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the said order, without producing a copy of the same, giving the facts and figures in a distorted manner, seeking for interference which is not liable to be entertained, submits the W.P.(C) No. 20490 OF 2010 4 learned Counsel for the Bank. 4. Taking note of the facts and figures as above, it is an undisputed fact that the steps taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act have already been subjected to challenge by statutory remedy as borne by Ext.P1 S.A. filed before the DRT, wherein Ext.P3 interim order was passed, later leading to the order passed on 10.06.2010 vacating Ext. P3 interim order. Since the petitioners have already approached the DRT, absolutely no interference is called for and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved of any order passed by the DRT, they are still having the remedy by approaching the DRAT as provided under the statute. This Court does not find it as a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk