IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21502 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MOIDU, S/O.ALAVI, AGED 55 YEARS, KARAMKULAM HOUSE, VETTEKKARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. OFFICE INSPECTOR/SPECIAL SALE OFFICER- IN-CHARGE, OTTAPPALAM PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.P.621, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, STATE OF KERALA. 2. THE SECRETARY, OTTAPPALAM PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.P.621, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, STATE OF KERALA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21502 OF 2009 (G) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had availed of a loan from the respondent Bank. Default was committed. Recovery proceedings were initiated and on 15/6/2009, the Sale Officer has published Ext.P3 notice proposing to sell the property mortgaged for realising Rs.2,21,443/- and other charges and the sale is scheduled to take place tomorrow. Petitioner contends that after Ext.P3 notice was published, on 1/7/2009, he filed Ext.P1 application before the respondents complaining that the details of the loan were not disclosed, that the Sale Officer who published Ext.P3 was incompetent and that he was not given the benefit of the one time settlement scheme announced by the Government. 2. These objections have been considered and the Bank has given Ext.P2 reply dated 17/7/2009 where dealing with his complaint of non disclosure of the details of the liability, he has been told that on the date of disbursement of the loan itself, all these documents including passbook, which contained all the details have been disbursed. In so far as the incompetence of WPC 21502/09 :2 : the Sale officer is concerned, it is stated that he is an officer duly appointed by the Government and therefore is competent. Dealing with the compliant of the petitioner that he has not been given the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, it is stated that during the currency of the scheme, petitioner did not approach the respondents for availing of the benefit of the scheme. 3. Counsel submits that the scheme provided that individual notice should be given to the defaulters and that the said provision in the scheme was not complied with and notice was not given to all defaulters. He produced a copy of the scheme relied on by him and made reference to Clause 9. On a reading of Clause 9, all that I notice is that it requires the Bank to give adequate publicity regarding the scheme and it does not cast any obligation on the Bank to give individual notice on the defaulters. If so, there is no substance in the argument now raised. 4. From the above, it can be seen that all the three objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P1 are devoid of merit. 5. As already noticed, the sale is to take place tomorrow and admittedly, petitioner is a defaulter and there is no irregularity WPC 21502/09 :3 : committed by the respondents. I do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition at this belated stage. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp