IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17273 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.MOHANAN, S/O.VAVA, CHAKARAYIL HOUSE, VARANAM POST, CHERTHALA - 688 555. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THALASSERY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.1030, PERAVOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALASSERY - 3. 2. SALE OFFICER, THALASSERY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.1030, THALASSERY - 3. 3. THE KERALA FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.17273/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.5.2003 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 16.1.2004 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD OF MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM DT. 26.5.2005 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY PETITIONER DT. 19.;3.2009 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DT. NIL NO.E.P.83/2001-02 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.17273 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 notice issued by the second respondent Sale Officer under section 20 of the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) read with rule 8 of the Kerala State Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Rules, 1986 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent bank on the security of an item of immovable property belonging to him. Ext.P5 sale proclamation has been issued to recover the sum of Rs.74,510/- due from the petitioner. Section 19 of the Act empowers the first respondent bank to bring the security to sale without the intervention of the Court after a registered notice requiring payment of the amount due has been served upon the defaulter and the defaulter fails to repay the loan within a period of two months after service of the notice of demand. It is after that stage that the Managing Committee of the Agricultural W.P(C) NO.17273/2011 -:2:- Development Bank moves the Sale Officer to bring the security to sale without the intervention of the Court. The petitioner has not pleaded that before Ext.P5 notice was issued no other notice was issued by the bank demanding repayment of the loan. Such being the situation the issuance of Ext.P5 notice cannot be said to be illegal. That apart as an Agricultural Development Bank the first respondent bank is entitled to sell the security without the intervention of the Court. Such being the situation I find no grounds to entertain the challenge to Ext.P5. 3. Though the petitioner has a case that Ext.P5 notice was served on him only on 22.6.2011 the said plea has not been established by any cogent material. In other words apart from the ipsi dixit of the petitioner there is no material to substantiate the said plea. Rule 8 of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Rules stipulates that upon an application from the bank the Sale Officer shall give notice to the defaulter stating the amount claimed by the bank including the expenses incurred by it in the service of notice and the particulars of the properties to be sold in case of non-payment and demanding payment within a time to be allowed by the Sale Officer. It is only after such a notice has been issued that a W.P(C) NO.17273/2011 -:3:- proclamation of sale is published. The petitioner has no case that the Sale Officer had not issued a notice in terms of clause (c) of rule 8 of the Rules. Such being the situation the mere fact that the sale notice was served only a few days back is by itself not a reason to hold that the sale proposed to be held as per Ext.P5 notice is without the sanction or authority of law. That apart, even if the sale is held, the petitioner has a remedy under section 21 of the Act to have the sale set aside on deposit. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.17273 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 27th June, 2011