IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 920 of 2010(O) --------------------------- SA.412/2009 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM CMP.6749/2010 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. THANGAL KUNJU, HAZEENA MANZIL, KANNAKARAVEEDU, PADINJATTEKARA, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 2. RAMLATH BEVI, W/O.THANGAL KUNJU, HAZEENA MANZIL, KANNAKARAVEEDU, PADINJATTEKARA, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, (REGIONAL OFFICE)HOTAL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDINGS, MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. BRANCH MANAGER, SOTUH INDIAN BANK LTD, THEVALAKKARA BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE. THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(DRT).No.920 of 2010-I. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). According to the petitioner, the loan transaction in question was purely an 'agricultural loan' and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of total waiver under the Agricultural Debts Relief Scheme' formulated by the Central Government. When proceedings was initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal invoking Section 17(1) of the Act. A Securitisation Application filed in this regard was dismissed as not pressed through Ext.P5 order. It is evident that an endorsement was made by the counsel appearing for the respondent Bank to the effect that they are not intending to proceed with the matter. OP(DRT).No.920/2010-I. 2 2. According to the petitioner, in violation of the undertaking made before the Tribunal, the Bank took further proceedings under Sec.14(1) of the Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached in this regard. Ext.P6 is a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner had again approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging Ext.P6 by fling another Securitisation Application, as evidenced from Ext.P3. In Ext.P4 an interim order was issued by that Tribunal wherein the proceedings was stayed till 6.12.2010, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30.11.2010 and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30.12.2010. 3. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 interim order issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to consider claim of the petitioner for the benefit of waiver under the scheme mentioned OP(DRT).No.920/2010-I. 3 above. It is not recoverable. It is also contended that the petitioner had already effected payment of considerable amounts. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, I am of the view that it is totally improper on the part of this Court to interfere in the matter, since the petitioner had already invoked statutory remedy before the appropriate authority. It is evident that the Tribunal had already registered the Securitisation Application on its files and had exercised discretion in granting a conditional stay. If the petitioner has got any case that the Tribunal had omitted to take note of any of the grounds raised, the remedy left open to the petitioner is not to file a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but to seek appropriate modification before the Tribunal itself. On the other hand, if the petitioner could not comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4 within the time prescribed, it is for him to seek further extension OP(DRT).No.920/2010-I. 4 before the Tribunal. However, while considering the merit of the contentions I am of the view that no patent illegality or erroneous exercise if jurisdiction is pointed out warranting exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227. Under such circumstance, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. It is made clear that none of the observations contained herein, will not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedy before the authority concerned and the authority is left open to consider the matter untrammeled by any such observations. The writ petition is dismissed as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-