IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM RIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4426 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PRAMOD V.D., (PROP.LAKSHMI JEWELLERY), S/O.DAMODHARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, VALLIYIL HOUSE, KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE, PAZHUVIL WEST P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680564. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, EDAMUTTAM BRANCH, EDAMUTTAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST. REP. BY MANAGER - 680568. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, SARFEASI ACT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, EDAMUTTAM BRANCH, EDAMUTTAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 680568. R1 &R2 BY ADV.T. SETHUMADHAVAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Ke C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 4426 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the existing facility for one time settlement after granting available concessions and reductions. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from proceeding against, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). On the facts it is noticed that, consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner, Ext.P2 lawyer notice was issued at the behest of the respondent Bank, to which the petitioner had caused a reply as per Ext.P3 seeking benefits under the 'one time settlement scheme'. 2. Considering the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that, the relief sought for is highly misconceived. Demand for payment of money due under the loan transaction as WP(C) .4426/2011 2 well as the request for settlement through 'One Time Settlement' are matters purely coming within the purview of the contractual obligations arising out of the loan agreement. There is no grievance voiced in this writ petition which pertains to failure on the part of the respondent Bank in discharging any statutory obligations. Nor the petitioner is claiming enforcement of any statutory rights. As such, even if assuming that the petitioner has got any right arising out of the terms of the contract the remedy could not be through a writ petition. Power of this court under Article 226 could not be invoked for granting any such relief. 3. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge statutory action if any initiated, under the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .4426/2011 3