IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29432 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.ANILKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN UNNITHAN, CHIRAKONATHU HOUSE, 'MALAVIKA', P.O.PANAYARA, THACHODE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 145. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISE OFFICER/ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALCOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682017. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ATTINGAL BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C. FOR R1 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R1 SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R3 SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO FOR R3 SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH FOR R3 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29432 of 2008(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DTD.29.9.2008 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.7.11.2007 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD.12.8.2008 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR DTD.1.7.2006 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R(3) : COPY OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR DTD.1.7.2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.29432 of 2008-D ---------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 14.10.2008, interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.10 lakhs within four weeks. The matter came up for further consideration on 1.2.2010, yesterday and today as well, when the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the petitioner could not comply with the condition imposed by this Court. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner, by virtue of the conduct displayed by himself has shown that he does not want to honour the commitment. Hence, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available in accordance with law. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ab //True Copy// P.A to Judge