IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6261 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- E.M.EBRAHIM, ELAMKAVU HOUSE, KIZHAKKENCHERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 684. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE-VADAKKENCHERY BRANCH, P.B.NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, CVM COMPLEX BUILDING, VADAKKENCHERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 683. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.34, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012. BY ADV. SRI. T. SETHUMADHAVAN, SC FOR SBT RI BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.6261 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers. “i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to regularise the loan accounts mentioned in Ext.P7 representation by remitting the defaulted instalments; ii)to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P7 representation expeditiously within a time limit fixed by this Honourable Court; iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents not to initiate any coercive recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to loan accounts mentioned in Ext.P7 representation for a period of six months”. wpc 6261/2011 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite filing Ext.P7, requesting for rescheduling the loan, it has been simply given a go-by, by the bank which made the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. 3. The respondent bank has filed a statement pointing out that the total outstanding amount under different loan transactions availed by the petitioner is more than Rs.27.87 Lakhs. Despite the many request/demand made from the part of the bank, no positive step has been taken by the petitioner to satisfy the due amount, when the `overdue' amount itself is stated as Rs.15,84,469/-. The learned counsel for the bank also points out that, no coercive steps have been taken by the bank against the petitioner as on date, but for alerting him to clear the due amount, lest appropriate steps should follow in accordance with the provisions of law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that no viable proposal has been put forward by the petitioner and bank is entitled to proceed with further steps. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to clear the liability and is intending to prefer an exhaustive representation supplementing Ext.P7 for a viable wpc 6261/2011 3 proposal. The learned counsel for the bank submits that the same will be duly dealt with. 4. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the bank with such `viable proposal' within a period of `two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; upon which the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the bank as expeditiously as possible. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk