IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27472 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. D.RAJEEV, SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, TIRUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 133 2. SUDHAKARAN M. ARAMAM, OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 5TH FLOOR K.S.H.B BUILDING, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR K.S.H.B BUILDING, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 4. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV.SRI.R.S. KALKURA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27472 OF 2008 (U) -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners availed a loan. The purpose of that loan was to support the activity of slaughter tapping and sale of rubber trees. On default, the bank filed Ext.P1 suit in which it was submitted by the writ petitioners on 02-12-2002 that they are withdrawing their contentions in the written statement and that the suit may be decreed with costs, with a direction to refund one half of the court fee to the plaintiff therein. Endorsement was made to that effect and the suit was decreed accordingly, as per Exts.P1 and P2. 2. On account of non-payment of the amounts due under that decree, the bank filed proceedings under the RDB Act before the DRT. That led to Ext.P3, which was issued without any contest. The writ petitioners remain ex-parte. Even if they had entered appearance, in view of Ext.P1, they would not have much to say. Thereafter, Ext.P4 demand notice was issued by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act on 28-01-2005. No payment was made. W.P.(C) No.27472/2008 - 2 - That led to a sale proclamation on 15-02-2007. The writ petitioners were granted an offer and certificated for private sale within a period of 45 days from 14-01-2008. Even that opportunity was not used. Thereafter, the property has been brought up for sale and is listed for sale tomorrow. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the waiver of the loan, since it is an agricultural loan availed by an agriculturist. The amount was availed to support a contract taken by the first petitioner to slaughter tapping, removal and sale of timber of rubber trees from an item of property. This is not treated as agricultural purpose. The petitioners have also not demonstrated any document that they are agriculturists for the purpose of scheme. Not only that the scheme would not apply at all, since the date of loan is before the cut-off date from which the scheme applies. 4. It was then argued that proceedings taken for sale by adjourning the matter in terms of the impugned proceedings is unsustainable. No prejudice is shown to have been caused in that regard since, as already noticed, the petitioners had obtained W.P.(C) No.27472/2008 - 3 - time to wipe off the outstandings even by private sale. They did not use that opportunity. 5. Faced with aforesaid situations, the learned counsel for the bank pointed out that the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that they would not get the benefit of the agriculturists' scheme. I am not prepared to accept the statement. Not only that, even if the petitioners want to have sale set aside that can be done in terms of the Rules within the time limit fixed for sale. If the bank is precluded from having the sale conducted, that would only further delay the recovery proceedings, causing more expenditure in the process. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving open the questions regarding the proposed sale, that is challenged in this writ petition and right of the petitioners to seek alternate remedy in course of any laws. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/17/9