IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31070 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.V. SUNILDATH, 50 YEARS,S/O.P.R.VASAN, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MANJUMAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, ALUVA BRNACH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, THE HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PKK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------- WP(C) NO. 31070 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 JUDGMENT ----------- The writ petition is filed seeking relief inter alia to direct the first respondent Bank to settle the loan account availed by the petitioner, by waving interest and other charges and to allow the petitioner to repay the dues in installments. Allegation of the petitioner is that the first respondent had permitted such settlement with respect to loan transactions of other persons. It is evident that the first respondent Bank had filed a civil suit for realization of amounts covered under the loan account availed by the petitioner. The civil court has issued a decree which was subsequently transformed into a recovery certificate of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The matter is now pending before the 2nd respondent Recovery Officer, under proceedings of execution of the recovery certificate. It is evident that the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 before the Recovery Officer raising objections with respect to the quantum of arrears and also challenging the proposed action of sale of immovable property. WP(C) NO. 31070 OF 2009 2 2. I am afraid that the writ petition is highly misconceived. The petitioner has not raised any contentions before the appropriate civil forum, where the respondent Bank had filed suit for realization of the amounts. Further the petitioner has not produced any evidence before this court to show that he was discriminated in the matter of recovery of the loan amount. The mere fact that the first respondent bank had settled the loan account of a similar nature, it will not confer any right to the petitioner to claim such relief. However, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised on the basis of any such allegations of discrimination. Hence the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly by dismissed. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE pkk