IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4295 of 2007(J) ------------------------- DRC.1259/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- AISHA BEEVI, 68 YEARS, W/O.V.P.KASIM (LATE), AISHA NIVAS, ZACHARIA WARD, ALAPPUZHA BEACH PO, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP), 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. 3. K.M.ABDULLAH KUNJU, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, PROP.SAHEER ROADWAYS, ALAPPUZHA. 4. GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KAVALAM PUTHEN PARAMBU VEEDU, THONDANKULANGARA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 5. K.YUNIS, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, ZEENATH MANZIL, ALISERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. ADV. MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4295 of 2007(J) APPENDIX. PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF PROCLAMATION OF SALE DATED 07.06.2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4295 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ setting aside the order of Proclamation of Sale dated 07.06.2006 ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 2nd respondent to issue fresh order of proclamation regarding the sale of item No.1 property belonging to the principal debtor, which is more than sufficient to realise the entire debt amount. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 2nd respondent to re-fix the reserved prices of item Nos. 1 to 4 in accordance with the market value of the land. W.P.(C) No. 4295 OF 2007 2 iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 2nd respondent to sell the property belongs to the petitioner as the last item, in consideration of the sad plight of the petitioner that her dwelling house is situated in the said property. v. Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 08.12.2007, it was admitted ordering notice to the respondents also making it clear that the second respondent shall sell Item 1 in Ext.P1, which belongs to the third respondent/principal borrower at the first instance, simultaneously directing that the contention of the petitioner that the reserve price for the same had been fixed without any regard to the market value, shall also be taken into account by the second respondent . The notice sent to the third respondent was returned with the endorsement ‘not known’, under which circumstance this Court W.P.(C) No. 4295 OF 2007 3 granted a further period of one week to the petitioner on 15.02.2010 to take necessary steps, but the petitioner chose to remit the process charges in the very same address without taking any earnest effort to see that the notice to the third respondent is caused to be served after collecting the correct address or by way of substituted service. In the said circumstances, the notice was not sent as endorsed by the Registry 3. The main prayers raised are in respect of sale proclamation already issued and to re-fix the reserve price, while the remaining prayer is only to sell the property belonging to the petitioner as the last item. All the prayers are seen taken care of by this Court while granting the interim order on 08.02.2007. 4. This being the position, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the proceedings pending any further, more so, when the petitioner has not chosen to complete service of notice on the third respondent. W.P.(C) No. 4295 OF 2007 4 5. In the above facts and circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, as provided under the relevant statute by approaching the statutory authorities concerned. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk