IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15048 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHINJU KUMAR. M., S/O. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR AGED 38 YEARS, ANUGRAHAM, MALEKADU ROAD, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHRA, ERNAKULAM-682 307. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORIZED OFFICER) ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR. 2. THE MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, KNNANKERY ESTATE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM – 31. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJENDRAN, SRI.K.S.FRIJO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 15048 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 05/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 15048 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002. On 3.6.2011, this court passed the following interim order: “It auction is conducted in terms of Ext. P1 notice, the sale shall not be confirmed for a period of five weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall make payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees tan lakh only) within a period of one month.” A representation is made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that as per his information, the amount has been paid. But, the counsel for the bank submits that the amount has not been paid. 2. It is settled law that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 should be challenged in an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided in the Act itself. The Supreme Court has time and again cautioned the High Courts against entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary W.P(C) No. 15048 of 2011 -: 2 :- jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner especially since the petitioner has not complied with the interim order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/