IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35180 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MR. T.A.AUGUSTINE, HOTEL SKYLARK, PULIYANMALA P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.THANKOM.G SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS & BANKING, NEW DELHI. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE - 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN BHAVAN, MUMBAI AND HAVING A BRANCH AT KATTAPPANA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER TO KATTAPPANA BRANCH. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 35180 OF 2007 L ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. First objection is against Ext.P4 possession notice issued by the bank on 16/11/2007. It is contended by the petitioner that 13(2) notice having been served only on 26/9/07, Ext.P4 issued on 16/11/2007 was premature. This submission of the learned counsel is not contested by the Bank. On the other hand, all that the Bank would now submit is that in any case by now, the period specified in the Act has expired and that the Bank does not intend to act upon Ext.P4. 2. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that on receipt of Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 13(2), Ext.P5 WPC 35180/07 :2 : reply has been submitted by the petitioner and that considering the objection vide Ext.P5, no order has been passed. In reply to this submission, it is submitted by the standing counsel for the Bank that if reply has not been given, they will consider the reply and pass orders thereon. According to him, only thereafter, further action will be continued against the petitioner. 3. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the property involved is an agricultural property is concerned, this is disputed by the Bank. According to the Bank, this being a “purayidam” is not eligible to be exempted from the purview of the Act. In any case, in view of the serious factual dispute raised in this respect, I do not propose to examine the correctness or otherwise of this argument and leave open the parties to contest the same in appropriate proceedings. In view of what has been submitted by the counsel for the Bank and recorded as above, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp