IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15502 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- BENNY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, CHELLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA P.O., MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685584, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.K.V.RAMYA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA-685584. 3. SALE OFFICER, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA-685584. 4. ARIKUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1438, ARIKUZHA P.O., MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685584, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: smt P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 15502 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued by the third respondent sale officer in execution of two awards passed against the petitioner in the year 2001 and 2000 respectively, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that Exts.P1 and P2 notices are manifestly illegal and unsustainable in law. A reading of Ext.P1 notice indicates that it is issued in execution of an award passed in A.R.C.No.3891 of 2001. Similarly, Ext.P2 discloses that it is issued in execution of an award passed in A.R.C.No.1830 of 2000. The petitioner has no case that he was not heard before the awards were passed. The awards have attained finality. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that it was on account of the failure of the petitioner and other judgment debtors to satisfy the awards that steps were taken to execute the awards. Such being the situation, I find no merit or justification in the request made by the learned W.P.(C)No. 15502 of 2011 2 counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to pay the amount demanded in installments. It is evident from the impugned notices that the amount demanded was due more than a decade back and that it was because of the failure of the petitioner to discharge the decree debt that the impugned notices were issued. I, therefore find no ground to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE dmb