IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7588 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.I.USMAN, AGED 62, S/O.LATE HYDROSE, VALLEPPILLY HOUSE, EDAPALLY TOLL, COCHIN-24. 2. AFSAL.V.U., AGED 30, S/O.USMAN, RESIDING AT VALLEPPILLY HOUSE, EDAPALLY TOLL, COCHIN-24. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA SMT.N.K.SHEEBA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT, KALAMASSERY BRANCH, PREMIER JUNCTION, KALAMASSERY, PIN-683 104. BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY, SC SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7588 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P4 proposal. In Ext.P4, which was allegedly submitted by the 2nd petitioner before the Branch Manager of the respondent bank, request was made to grant time for repayment of the loan availed by the petitioners, or in the alternative, to permit substitution of the security furnished by way of mortgage, with a proposal to settle the arrears by sale of certain properties. 2. The matter involved in Ext.P4 representation is purely one coming within the realm of contractual obligations arising out of the terms of the loan agreement. Whether the request made under Ext.P4 can be considered or not, is a matter which is coming within the discretion of the respondent Bank, depending on their policy decisions. The petitioners are not seeking any enforceable right through Ext.P4, nor it can be considered as a statutory 2 W.P.(C).No.7588 of 2011 application. Hence it is left open to the petitioners to pursue remedy claimed under Ext.P4 by approaching the concerned authority in the respondent bank. However, no direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus can be issued for consideration and disposal of Ext.P4, since the request made therein is not for enforcement of any statutory right and also because of the fact that the respondent Bank is not a Governmental organization against whom a writ under Article 226 can be issued. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the liberty of the petitioners to pursue remedy before the appropriate authority. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/