IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21981 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THE HONKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. P.O.BOX 2244, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMPAZHTHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VEDAKKAN WILFRED JOSE, PLANKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, KAVALKULAM, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMODE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.21981 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a banking establishment who had initiated proceedings against the 4th respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner approached the District Collector for assistance to take possession of the property under Section 14 of the Act. The 1st respondent - District Collector has issued Ext.P6 letter to the authorised Officer of the petitioner to furnish the following information. “1. Where there any guarantors for the loan? If yes, what efforts have been taken to contact them? 2. The bank says that the loanee was contacted several times. But there is no evidence in your application about this.” For failure of furnishing such information, the application of the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P10 order. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the Collector has no such powers to require the petitioner to produce such information. According to him, it amounts to adjudication of a W.P(C)No.21981 of 2008 - 2 - dispute which is not permitted as per decision of this Court in C.R.Sindhu v. State of Kerala 2007(4) KHC 944. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. I am also satisfied that the Collector does not have any jurisdiction to enquire about the guarantors and about whether the borrower has been contracted several times. The jurisdiction of the District Collector is very narrow. I am satisfied that Ext.P6 and P10 is unsustainable and they are therefore quashed. I direct the District Collector to take appropriate action on the petitioner's application under Section 14, strictly in accordance with decision in C.R.Sindhu v. State of Kerala 2007(4) KHC 944. The orders shall be passed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs