IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37548 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NARAYANAN M, RESIDING AT MADIVAYAL, CHERUVATHUR, P.O. CHERUVATHUR, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ARBITRATOR/SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES (GEN), KANNUR. 2. THE NILESHWAR BLOCK HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, P.O. NILESHWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R2 MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.37548 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of July, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.1.50 lakhs from the 2nd respondent Bank. Towards security, he had mortgaged 5 3/8 cents of land and a residential house therein. Default was committed and the petitioner has now been served Ext.P1 notice proposing to sell the mortgaged property. It was challenging Ext.P1, the writ petition is filed. This Court admitted the writ petition and granted stay, and the position continues as such. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only that in Ext.P1 no particulars of the ARC, which led to Ext.P1, is mentioned, but also that he did not even get any notice from the 1st respondent in relation to the ARC proceedings, and therefore, he could not appear and contest the matter. 3. Taking into account the above contention raised, and considering the interim orders passed by this Court in this writ petition, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- WP(C) No.37548/2008 -2- That the petitioner can move the 1st respondent with an application complaining of non-receipt of notice in the arbitration proceedings and on verification of the records, if the 1st respondent finds that the proceedings were completed without notice to the petitioner, the 1st respondent shall re-open the arbitration proceedings and reconsider the case with notice to the petitioner, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case. 4. In so far as Ext.P1 notice challenged in this writ petition is concerned, it is noticed that as per this notice, the sale was scheduled on 31/12/2008, which, on account of the interim order passed by this Court, did not materialise. Therefore, nothing further survives to be considered about the validity of the said notice. 5. The petitioner may make an application as directed above to the 1st respondent within three weeks from today, in which event, the 1st respondent shall consider and deal with the matter as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg