IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37334 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOHN, AGED 55, PANACHIYAT HOUSE, EDAVETTI P.O. AND KARA, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK, THEKKUMKAL BUILDINGS, T.B.ROAD,, KOTTAYAM. 2. MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGD. OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 3. MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, TATAPURAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY ADV.SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37334 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is seeking direction to quash Ext.P1 notice of proclamation of sale published by the 1st respondent. From Ext.P1 it is evident that the sale proclamation was published pursuant to steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 does not contain any material with respect to the quality of the property. The petitioner claims that he is a person intending to participate in the auction sale. He needs clarification as to whether the petrol bunk is situated in the property which is included in the sale. 2. I am of the opinion that the writ petition is highly misconceived. It is the lookout of the respondents 1 and 2 to see that the auction is conducted in a proper manner and maximum price is derived out of the sale. Further, grievance if any can only be for the borrower or a guarantor of the loan transaction concerned. If the petitioner is W.P.(C).37334/10-N -2- intending to participate in the bid, he has to ascertain the quality of the property by himself. He need to participate in the auction sale only if he is fully convinced about the details, after ascertaining the quality and quantity of the land. It is not for the petitioner to dictate terms to the respondents 1 and 2 as to how the auction need be conducted. The petitioner is not having any locus standi in the matter to challenge the proposed sale. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb