IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 34074 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. STELLA FLORENCE, STELLA BHAVAN, OLATHANNI JN. NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJEEV S.R., INCHIPULLUVILA VEEDU, VIZHINJAM, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M.SUGATHAN, NELLIPARAMPU, KIZHAKKUMURI VEEDU, PAYATTUVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SRI.N.SASI RESPONDENT: ---------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REGION-1, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES) BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34074/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.2602/07 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE CJM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER IN CMP NO.2602/07, CJM COURT, TRIVANDRUM DT 7.11.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 34074 OF 2007 F ==================== Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The Securitisation proceedings initiated against the petitioners is challenged on the ground that Ext.P1 application made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was incompetent in as much as the Chief Judicial Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same. Now that a Division Bench of this court has upheld the competence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by its judgment in WA 428/08 and connected cases, that challenge raised by the petitioners lack any merit. 2. It is now pointed out by the counsel for the Bank that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners were given the benefit of Agricultural Debts Relief Scheme, and that as such, the petitioners still owe about Rs.5.3 lakhs to the Bank. It is also pointed out that petitioners have already been given an instalment facility in terms of the said scheme. 3. Now that the contention on the merits raised by the petitioners have been rejected and as the petitioners have already been WPC 34074/07 :2 : given the benefit of the Agricultural Debts Relief Scheme, necessarily, the petitioners will have to make repayment also in terms thereof. Since an instalment facility has also been given, the petitioners shall make payment in terms thereof. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp