IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6473 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHRI.SHIJI K.C. KARIKKANATTU HOUSE, THALUKANDAM, MANKULAM P.O. - 685565. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SPECIAL SALE OFFIER, DEVIKULAM TALUK, SHAKARANA KARSHAKA GRAMA VIKASANA BANK LTD., NO.1.136, ADIMALY P.O. IDUKKI. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEVIKULAM TALUK SAHAKARANA, KARSHAKA GRAMA VIKASANA BANK LTD NO.I.136, ADIMALY P.O., IDUKKI. ADVS. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R2 SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kp P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6473 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent bank in the year 2002. When the loan was not repaid, the bank took steps to proceed against the security. Ext.P1 demand notice dated 31.10.2009 was thereupon issued. The petitioner sent Ext.P2 letter dated 19.11.2009 in reply. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.34917 of 2009 in this Court. In that writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 4.12.2009 to the effect that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 would stand stayed for a period of one month, if the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs.75,000/- within that period. The petitioner did not comply with the said direction. Instead, he filed I.A. No.199 of 2010 for enlargement of the time fixed by this Court for payment of the sum of Rs.75,000/- by a period of three months. By order passed on 5.2.2010, this Court enlarged the time for payment of the sum of Rs.75,000/- by a period of one month from 5.2.2010. The petitioner did not comply with the said direction. W.P.(C) No.34917 of 2009 thereafter came up for further hearing on 29.3.2010. Though in paragraph 7 of the present writ petition the WPC No.6473/2011 2 petitioner has referred to the fact that he had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.34917 of 2009 he has not referred to the orders passed by this Court in the said writ petition. In fact, no details are forth coming about the orders passed by this Court in the said writ petition. I therefore called for and perused the judges papers in W.P.(C) No.34917 of 2009. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders passed by this Court by depositing the sum of Rs.75,000/-, this Court by judgment delivered on 29.3.2010 disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may approach the second respondent bank for payment of the defaulted amount in instalments, if he so choses. 2. The petitioner did not evidently make any request in that regard. The respondents thereupon issued Ext.P3 sale notice dated 15.1.2011 informing the petitioner that the security furnished by him will be brought to sale and sold by public auction on 9.3.2011 for recovery of the sum of Rs.2,15,550/- due as on 15.1.2011 with future interest and other charges. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notice and seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation. 3. In view of the judgment delivered in W.P.(C) No.34917 of WPC No.6473/2011 3 2009 wherein also the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, no direction can be issued in this writ petition to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 petition. Therefore the second relief sought for cannot be granted. As regards the sale notice, in view of the past conduct of the petitioner, namely his failure to deposit the sum of Rs.75,000/- pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.34917 of 2009 after having enjoyed the benefit of conditional stay order passed by this Court, I am of the opinion that no indulgence is called for. W.P.(C) No.34917 of 2009 was filed on 3.12.2009 and was disposed of on 29.3.2010. For nearly four months the petitioner was able to prevent the bank from proceeding to sell the security. After the said writ petition was disposed of, the bank initiated steps to sell the security. It was thereafter that Ext.P3 sale notice was issued on 15.1.2011. The petitioner who is admittedly in default and has not paid any amounts to the bank after Ext.P2 demand notice which was issued on 31.10.2009 cannot be heard to contend that the bank cannot invoke the remedy available to it under section 19 of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act, 1984 and sell the security without the intervention of the court. WPC No.6473/2011 4 Further apart from vaguely alleging that the amount claimed is excessive, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the demand is exorbitant. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P3. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.6473/2011 5 WPC No.6473/2011 6