IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No. 1735 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17225/2008 DATED 11/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M.A.HAROON, ANUS COTTAGE, VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE MINISTRY, NEW DELHI. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.S.P.KURUP R3 BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1735 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This is the second round of litigation by the appellant/petitioner before us. He had approached this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P.(C) No.6317 of 2008, inter alia, calling in question the legality or otherwise of Ext.P1 notice issued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Securitisation Act' for short). (2) A memo was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. This Court by its order dated 6th June, 2008 has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. (3) After disposal of that writ petition, the petitioner has once again filed the present writ petition in No.17225 of 2008. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs. They are as under: “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ, direction or order and call for the records leading to exhibits P1 and P3 notices as illegal and unlawful; W.A.No.1735 of 2008 2 ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order and direct the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of complete waiver of his agricultural loans as per exhibit P4 scheme and not to take any further steps pursuant to exhibits P1 and P3 notices for recovery of the same; iii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order and direct the respondents to regularize the housing loan of the petitioner and to permit him to pay off the same in instalments as per the loan schedule in future.” (4) By Exts.P1 and P3 notices issued under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, the Bank intends to recover the amounts due to them from the petitioner towards the housing loan, agricultural loan and the loan advanced towards prawn hatchery and prawn fishery business. After receipt of those notices, the petitioner has filed his objection (Ext.P5) dated 2.6.2008 and in that has specifically stated that in view of the loan waiver scheme that is floated by the Union of India, the petitioner would be entitled for certain reliefs. Therefore, has requested the Bank to consider his case for waiver of the loan amount borrowed and also the interest thereof. Without passing any orders on Ext.P5 objection filed by the petitioner, it is stated in the writ petition, that the respondents are W.A.No.1735 of 2008 3 proceeding to complete the proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation Act. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank, the petitioner was before this Court in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition and that is how the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. (5) Admittedly, the petitioner had taken three loans, one was housing loan, the second was for agricultural purposes and the third one was for prawn hatchery and prawn fishery business. In so far as the second loan is concerned, we are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, that the loan amount that was disbursed to the appellant has been settled by the appellant. This assertion is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We need not have to discuss on this issue for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal. (6) Admittedly, as we have already stated, the appellant had borrowed three loans and out of which he has settled only one loan account. According to him, in view of the loan waiver scheme of the Central Government, the appellant is also eligible and entitled to get the benefit under the scheme. Accordingly, he has filed Ext.P5 representation before the respondent Bank dated 2.6.2008. It was expected of the respondent Bank to have considered that representation and passed appropriate orders and then only it should have proceeded further under the provisions of the W.A.No.1735 of 2008 4 Securitisation Act to recover any amount due to them from the appellant. In that view of the matter, without going into the other details of the case, we dispose of this writ appeal as under: ORDER i) Writ appeal is disposed of. ii) A direction is issued to the respondent Bank to consider Ext.P5 representation of the appellant dated 2.6.2008, keeping in view the scheme evolved by the Central Government for waiver of the agricultural loan and other types of loan which are akin to agricultural loans, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. iii) Till such time, the respondent Bank shall not initiate any coercive measures to recover the loan amounts due from the appellant. iv) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case pleaded by both the counsel for the parties. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) vns/dk JUDGE