IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6976 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJU THOMAS, S/O.N.J.THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, MANJIPUZHA THUNDIYIL HOUSE, ARINJERMALA POST, PANAMARAM, WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER-CUM-SENIOR MANAGER, M/S.SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LTD., SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 6976 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner defaulted in repayment of a loan. That led to SARFAESI Act proceedings being initiated in 2004. Ext.P1 is that notice under Section 13(2). Though the petitioner states that thereafter Section 13(4) steps were also taken, he does not even state the date of that action. The petitioner attempts to point out a case that recovery proceedings stalled and he be permitted to continue in possession. The pleadings essentially do not demonstrate that the petitioner is to be granted any facility by the intervention of this court, in writ jurisdiction, particularly in relation to an action taken by the first respondent, which is not “State” for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. Writ petition is hence dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if any, available under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/5/3