IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36429 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.C.MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.A.CHACKO,PATHENETTIL PALEKKAYAM BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA POONCHOLA BUILDING,POLLASSERY BRANCH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. THE MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.THE CHIEF SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.S.P.KURUP. R3 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEN GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.36429 of 2010-C. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent default in repayment of an agricultural loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent bank, the impugned proceedings were initiated. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for getting benefits under the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme formulated by the Government of India. Since request made by the petitioner for granting such benefits were declined, the petitioner had taken up the matter before various authorities like Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, etc. From Ext.P7 letter issued by the Reserve Bank of India it is evident that the matter was referred for consideration by the authorities of the WP(C).No.36429 of 2010-C. 2 respondent Bank and it was reported that the bank had already found that the petitioner was eligible for waiver of 25% of the amounts under the scheme, since he will come within the category of 'other farmer' defined under the provisions of the scheme, who is holding more than five Acres of land. The above fact is seriously disputed by the petitioner stating that the loan was availed for conducting agricultural operations and that the petitioner is having only an extent of five acres, he is not coming under the category of 'other farmer' and that going by the terms of the scheme he is eligible for full waiver of the amount. 2. However, I am of the opinion that the disputed question as stated above could not be resolved by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. I take notice that, under the Statute the petitioner has got statutory remedy to file objection against Ext.P12 notice which is issued under Sec.13(2) of the Act. It is obligatory on the part of the respondent to consider such request and to take a decision thereof, as per Sec.13 of the Act. WP(C).No.36429 of 2010-C. 3 3. Under such circumstance I am of the view that the petitioner can agitate the matter before the respondent Bank and if he is further aggrieved, the matter can be brought before any appropriate authority who is assigned with grievance redressal powers under the Debt Relief Scheme. Needless to say that if any objection/ representation is made by the petitioner against Ext.P12 within the statutory time prescribed, the same shall be considered by the respondent Bank, before proceeding with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner was agitating the mater before this Court, the petitioner is granted time for filing such objection/representation till 15.2.2011. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-