IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8969 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- DIVAKARAN NAIR, AGED 54, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, SANDHYA TOURIST COMPLEX, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM-1. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.8969 of 2008-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner moved this Court earlier and obtained Ext.P1 order. The plea raised at that point of time is that his establishment is worth more than Rupees 10 crores and 51 employees are likely to be forced to starvation, if the bar restaurant run by the petitioner comes to a standstill on the basis of the possession notice, an action taken by the bank for recovery of loan amount. The fact remains that no payments were made in terms of the instalment facility extended by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment, which was issued on 31st July, 2007. 2.The only plea in the writ petition in hand is that he could not keep up the schedule of payment WP(C)8969/08 -: 2 :- and amounts are still due and that he may be permitted to pay off the amounts in instalments. It is also shown that the petitioner has moved the Minister for Co-operation for certain reliefs. 3.In view of Ext.P1 judgment, I do not deem it necessary for this Court to exercise discretion and grant any relief to the petitioner, particularly when, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground for the petitioner to have violated the terms of Ext.P1 judgment. 4.The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/