IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1284 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.J.DEVASIA, NELLIKATHERIVIL HOUSE, PANAMPILAVU P.O., ARCACODE, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. HDFC LTD; NAMSO CENTRE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 519 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC NAMSO CENTRE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 519 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. K. K. CHANDRAN PILLAI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.1284 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent; defaulted in repayment, leading to the impugned action under the SARFAESI Act. The challenge of the petitioner to the Ext.P1 order issued by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of that Act is on the ground that the District Magistrate has delegated his authority to the Tahsildar, which is bad as held by this Court in Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 56]. But, a close reading of Ext.P1 would lead only to the repelling of that contention because, the District Magistrate had concluded to extend the police power of the State to enforce dispossession and all that the Tahsildar has been directed is to take over the possession. Essentially, such a situation is provided for even in terms of the law as WP(C)1284/2009 -: 2 :- understood by this Court in Sundaram BNP Paribas (supra). That contention, therefore, fails. 2.The next contention is that the lock-in period for the housing loan is not yet over and that therefore, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to avail the facility by clearing the defaulted instalments. This also does not appear to stand in view of the fact that the transaction has been classified as NPA in terms of RBI guidelines and in support of such classification it is pointed out on behalf of the creditor that at least 11 cheques issued by the petitioner had bounced and there had been no payment at all continuously for a long period. I do not, therefore, find any ground to direct the respondents to regularize the transaction. 3.It is pointed out that the petitioner is employed as a Sub Inspector of Police and was a victim of a motor accident and was on medical leave for a prolonged period. Ultimately, giving up all contentions and also the right of the petitioner to move the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI WP(C)1284/2009 -: 3 :- Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines the submissions to a request that the petitioner may be granted some time to pay off the outstandings. Taking the aforesaid submission into consideration, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.1 lac within a period of three weeks and continues to deposit at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from February, 2009, the impugned distress action will stand deferred and ultimately dropped. If there is default in depositing any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefits of this judgment will stand recalled and the writ petition will stand dismissed automatically enabling the respondents to forthwith proceed with the impugned distress action, without fresh notice to the petitioner. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160109