IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32120 of 2009(H) -------------------------- CMP.316/2009 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHOUKATH ALI, AGED 54,S/O.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT SHAYJU MANZIL, PERUMKULAM P.O.,(VIA) ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), UNION BANK OF INDIA,REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD,STATUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.32120 of 2009-H ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is approaching this Court challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), at a stage when the respondent Bank had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court invoking Section 14 (1). It is noticed that the petitioner had not chosen to avail remedies provided under Section 17(1) by approaching the statutory authority. Further it is also noticed that he has not taken any effective steps when 13(2) demand was raised, either to object such demand or to represent before the Bank seeking any settlement of the account. 2. Inspite of the above fact, as a gesture of indulgence, this Court directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within two weeks, by virtue of an interim order issued on 10.11.2009, and on that basis dispossession of the petitioner was directed to be kept in abeyance. Subsequently, I.A.No.15245 of 2009 was filed seeking W.P(C) No.32120 of 2009-H 2 extension of time for complying with the condition. On 4.12.2009, this Court allowed the application and time till 15.12.2009 was granted. Thereafter there is no posting till 7.10.2010. Within this prolonged period of ten months, the petitioner has not taken any steps to comply with the order. 3. It is now submitted that, consequent to failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the conditions stipulated, the property in question, which is the secured assets, was already taken over possession pursuant to orders issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. Through I.A.No.13987 of 2010, the petitioner is seeking further direction to restrain the respondent Bank from proceeding with sale of the property for a period of one month. 4. From the facts as stated above, I am not inclined to extent any relief sought for. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the property is let to be sold in auction by the Bank, the same will not fetch any real market price and therefore the petitioner had arranged a person who had offered reasonable value for the property. Therefore he is seeking a direction to the Bank to consider sale of the property to a buyer arranged by the petitioner. W.P(C) No.32120 of 2009-H 3 5. It is for the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank if he could arrange any genuine buyer for purchase of the property. It is for the Bank to take a decision on any offer made, considering the facts and circumstances prevailing with respect to probability of getting more value by resorting to an auction sale. It is absolutely within the discretion and wisdom of the authorities of the Bank to decide as to whether the price offered by any private buyer will be reasonable and as to whether such course is feasible or not. 6. Needless to say that if any such approach is made from the side of the the petitioner, the respondent bank will be at liberty to consider the same and to take appropriate decision. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the observations as contained above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab