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 WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No.1637 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13335/2008 Dated 24/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ T.S.HABEEB REHMAN, S/O.SAIDU HAJI, THARUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, P.A.ASHRAF, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, WEST ARAKULAM PO, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. UCO BANK, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN. 3. P.I.SAFIYA BEEVI, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.P.R.MILLS, VILLAPPILLY HOUSE, BUILDING NO.PMC/VII/278, M.C. ROAD, KANJIRAKAD, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 543. 4. V.P.LOVESY, S/O.P.I.SAFIYA BEEVI, M/S.P.R.MILLS, VILLAPPILLY HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 543. W.A.NO.1637/2008 -2- 5. YOUSUF MEHRALI, S/O.SAITHU HAJI, THARUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, C/O.MADASSERI, TIPU SULTHAN ROAD, P.O.THUVOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-679 327. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1637 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 notice issued by respondent No.1 Bank, taking possession of an item of immovable property which was allegedly furnished as security for the loan amount advanced to respondent Nos.3 and 4. The appellant contended that, he had been employed in Saudi Arabia since 1999. His brother, respondent No.5, had stolen the title deeds in respect of the said immovable property, and produced them before the Bank impersonating himself as the appellant. This was done by respondent No.5 in connivance with respondents 3 and 4, it was contended. The appellant alleged that he had nothing to do with the loan availed of by respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition was to quash Ext.P6 notice issued by the Bank. The learned Judge, after considering the contentions raised by the appellant noticed that the remedy of the appellant did not lie before the writ Court and if at all he was aggrieved by the action taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') he has to necessarily approach the competent authority W.A.No.1637/2008 -2- constituted for the said purpose. 3. We do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Judge. It is submitted by the learned counsel that police has registered a case against respondents 3 to 5 and the Bank Manager on a complaint filed by the appellant. He submits that if ultimately the charge against the accused is proved, irreparable loss, hardship and damage will be caused to the appellant especially if the property is allowed to be sold. 4. We are unable to agree. In our view, the remedy of the appellant lies before the competent authority constituted for the purpose under the Act and not before this Court. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 5. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS