IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25007 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ELIKKUTTY THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS, KIZHAKKETHOTTAM HOUSE, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR SRI.GINESH.P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN-CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4266, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA BRANCH, ARUVITHARA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-686 581. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN-CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4266, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA BRANCH, ARUVITHARA, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 581. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSISTANT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 & 3 SRI.T.V.VINU FOR R1 & 2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 25007/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.09.2007. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 03.05.2007. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 05.02.2010. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.03.2010 FROM THE FIRST RESPONDANT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.06.2010. RESPONDANT(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a) : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 2429/2004 DATED 23.11.2004, OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT R1(b) : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.06.2005 IN WP(C) NO. 12811/05 EXHIBIT R1(c) : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R1(d) : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 25.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. /True copy/ P.A. to Judge. dnc P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 25007 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent bank in year 1996. When she defaulted repayment, the bank filed A.R.C.No.1226 of 1999 and a decree was passed in that case. In execution of the award, the security furnished by the petitioner was brought to sale and sold on 19.2.2007 and it was purchased by the bank itself. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.5341 of 2007 in this Court challenging the sale. Later, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed by judgment delivered on 19.3.2007. Shortly thereafter, but before the sale was confirmed, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Thiruvananthapuram sent Ext.P1 letter dated 27.9.2007 directing the first respondent bank to extend to the petitioner the benefits flowing from Circular No.30 of 2007 dated 3.5.2007, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. It is stated that notwithstanding the said direction, the Joint Registrar confirmed the sale by order passed on 26.3.2009. This writ petition is filed contending that though the petitioner had in Ext.P3 representation dated 5.2.2010 requested the bank to extend to her the benefit of the one time settlement scheme, the said request was W.P.(C) No.25007 of 2010 2 rejected by Ext.P4 letter dated 30.3.2010. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to grant the benefit of Ext.P2 Circular to her as directed in Ext.P1. 2. The first respondent bank had filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that when in execution of the award, the bank took steps to proceed against the security, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.24729 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.R1(a) judgment delivered on 23.11.2004 with a direction to the bank to consider the petitioner's claim for one time settlement, if within the prescribed period, an application for one time settlement is submitted along with the prescribed payment. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that though pursuant thereto the bank had sent a notice dated 13.12.2004 to the petitioner informing her of the total amount due and had called upon her to remit 10% of the said amount and to submit an application for one time settlement, the petitioner did not make an application or deposit 10% of the said amount. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2005 in this Court suppressing the filing of the earlier writ petition and though Ext.R1(b) interim order was passed therein, the petitioner did not comply with the conditions stipulated by this Court and later the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The counter affidavit W.P.(C) No.25007 of 2010 3 proceeds to state that the petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.32858 of 2005 without disclosing the fact that she had earlier filed two writ petitions and the said writ petition was also dismissed for non- prosecution. It is stated that yet another writ petition, W.P.(C) No.5341 of 2007, was also filed suppressing the filing of the earlier writ petitions, and it was dismissed as not pressed on 19.3.2007. It is contended that as the sale of the security was held on 19.2.2007 and confirmed on 26.3.2009, the petitioner's request was rightly rejected. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is evident from the facts set out above that the petitioner had earlier filed four writ petitions in this Court, but did not comply with the interim orders passed therein and also did not prosecute the writ petitions. Three of the writ petitions were filed before the sale was held and the last of the last of the writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) No.5341 of 2007, was filed after the sale was held on 19.2.2007, and it was dismissed as not pressed on 19.3.2007. It was thereafter that the sale was confirmed on 26.3.2009. In my opinion, with the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.5341 of 2007, it is not open to the petitioner to canvass the correctness of the validity of the sale or to contend that the respondents ought to have afforded to her the benefits flowing from Ext.P1. W.P.(C) No.25007 of 2010 4 The writ petition is in my opinion an abuse of the process of the court. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25007 of 2010 JUDGMENT Dated:- 28th September, 2011 --------------------------------------