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 THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1621 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6994/2008 DATED 01/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 52, RESIDING AT ANANDEESWARAM, ARYANADU P.O., ARYANADU VILLAGE, PROPRIETOR, VAYALVARAM BRICKS INDUSTRIES, ANANDEESWARAM, ARYANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH, ARYANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK,TRIVANDRUM 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH, ARYANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ROHINI BUILDING, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, STATE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.GOPINATHA MENON R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.A.HARISH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1621 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6994 of 2008 dated 1st April, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition. 2. The facts in brief are: In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had primarily questioned the proceedings initiated by the first respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Securitisation Act', since the petitioner has defaulted in payment of the amounts due to the first respondent Bank. In the petition it is stated that the petitioner had taken a loan from the first respondent Bank for the purpose of commencing a brick kiln which is a unit sponsored by the 4th respondent, Khadi and Village Industries Commission. It is further stated that the petitioner could not continue with the business because of an unfortunate fire accident which took place in the business premises. It is W.A.No.1621 of 2008 2 further stated that the petitioner has approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram by filing O.P.No.418 of 2003 and the said complaint is still pending consideration by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 3. In the writ petition it is contended that till a final decision is taken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the Bank should be restrained from proceeding to recover the loan amount from the petitioner by resorting to the provisions of the Securitisation Act. 4. The learned Single Judge has taken note of all these aspects of the matter and has come to the conclusion that the Securitization Act does not restrain the first respondent Bank from proceeding to recover the amount due from the petitioner merely because a complaint is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 5. Apart from this, the petitioner had approached the Adalath for grant of some instalment facility to pay up the amounts due to the first respondent Bank. In fact, the Adalath had granted some instalment facility to the petitioner, but for reasons best known, the petitioner did not comply with the orders and directions issued by the Adalath. Even this aspect of the matter is also kept in view by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner. W.A.No.1621 of 2008 3 6. Having gone through the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the firm opinion that the petitioner/appellant is not entitled for any discretionary relief of this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Accordingly, while confirming the the findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, we reject this writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns