IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24785 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN, KALLUMPURATHU THEKKETHIL, THIRUMOOLAVARAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOLLAM. 2. THE SALE OFFICER, KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT.D.P.RENU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 24785/2009 -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PUBLIC AUCTION SALE NOTICE. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 24785 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due from him to the 1st respondent -Bank. The petitioner is challenging coercive recovery proceedings. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records leading to Ext. P 1 and quash the same. (b) a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to file a detailed statement of loan account of the petitioner. (c) a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to grant 6 months time from today to pay the outstanding loan amount till then all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 may be kept in abeyance.” 2. Ext. P1 is the sale notice. This Court on 27-8-2009 passed the following interim order: “Notice on admission. It is directed that if the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the amount due from him before 11.00 a.m. on 28- 8-2009, the auction of his property now scheduled as per Ext. P1 will be deferred for one month.” Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me on 17-11-2009 that the petitioner had approached the bank with Rs. 15,000/-, which the Bank refused to accept. Now, counsel for the bank submits before me that the petitioner has never approached the bank with any amount. After hearing both sides, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out any ground to challenge Ext. P1 insofar as the W.P.C. No. 24785/2009 -: 2 :- liability is admitted and the default persists. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.