IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No.2176 of 2008 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20774/2008 Dated 03/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ V.P.ASHRAF, S/O.PAREEKUTTY, VALIYATHARAYIL, CHANDIROOR- 688 547. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.V.LONACHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER. 2. P.A.NASEER, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 026. BY ADV.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2176 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.20774/2008 dated 3rd October, 2008. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition, and, further has observed that, the petitioner is precluded from moving the DRT or any other authority challenging the impugned action of the respondent-Bank initiated under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act” for short). 3. The appellant in this appeal only calls in question the penultimate para of the orders of the learned Single Judge where the learned Single Judge has observed, that, the petitioner is precluded from moving the DRT or any other authority challenging the impugned action of the respondent-Bank, though the Statute provides alternative remedies under the Act, if for any reason, a person is aggrieved by the notice W.A.2176/2008 -2- issued under Section 13 (2), 13 (3) and orders passed under Section 14 of the Act. This, in our opinion, may not be correct. When a remedy is provided under the Statute, a citizen is expected to make use of that statutory remedy, and, that cannot be prevented by this Court. When a writ petition is filed and it is rejected, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot avail the alternative remedy provided under the Statute. Therefore, while disposing of the writ appeal, we delete the penultimate para of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS