IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31568 of 2010(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. BABY JOSEPH,CHERUNILATH HOUSE, NARIYANGANAM POST, PALA 2. ANITHA BABY,-DO-,-DO- BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,(SARFAESI ACT) THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, POST BOX NO.140,KOTTAYAM-686 001 2. THE MANAGER, ERATTUPETTA BRANCH OF THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK ERATTUPETTA POST,KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 31568 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P2 notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Contention of the petitioner is that the property, which is the secured asset now being proceeded against is an agricultural land and it is exempted from the purview of SARFAESI Act by virtue of Section 31 (1). 2. It is noticed that the impugned notice is one issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. Going by provisions of the statute it is evident that the petitioner is entitled to raise objections against the demand issued under Section 13 (2) and the respondents are at an obligation to consider such objections and to take the decision thereof. 2 WP(C) No. 31568/2010 3. Under such circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the concerned authority, the first respondent herein. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider objections against Ext.P2 notice, if any submitted by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Needless to say that the respondents would be entitled to proceed with further steps only after taking a decision on such objections and after intimating the same to the petitioner. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc