IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37076 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS:- ------------------- 1. SALAHUDHEEN, AGED 38, S/O.LATE MOIDUNNI, KANHANGATTU VALAPPIL HOUSE, OTHALOOR PO, KAKKOOR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 330. 2. FATHIMA, AGED 75, W/O.LATE MOIDUNNI, KANHANGATTU VALAPPIL HOUSE, OTHALOOR PO, KAKKOOR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 330. 3. JAMEELA, AGED 40, D/O.LATE MOIDUNNI, KANHANGATTU VALAPPIL HOUSE, OTHALOOR PO, KAKKOOR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 330. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, PALAYAM ROAD BRANCH, COLOMBO COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE-673 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI-1. R1 BY SC SRI.ASP KURUP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.37076 of 2010-H. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P8. The petitioner is inter alia seeking direction for consideration of Ext.P5 proposal for 'one time settlement' on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 guide lines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Through the impugned order (Ext.P8) the proposal submitted by the petitioner for one time settlement was rejected as not acceptable. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 does not reflect any reason for such rejection and it is a cryptic order issued without applying mind. 2. It is noticed that, with respect to arrears due under the loan account, the first respondent Bank had filed OA.No.335/2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that Tribunal had already issued a recovery certificate. Further it is noticed that when proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and WP(C).No.37076 of 2010-H. 2 Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated, the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by invoking Section 17(1) and SA.No.311/2009 filed in this regard is pending disposal. It is also brought to my notice that in the securitisation application further proceedings were stayed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that the petitioner had already complied with the conditions stipulated in the interim stay order granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the decree passed in the OA is an exparte decree and an application filed to set aside the decree is also pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 3. Considering pendency of the above said matters before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, I am of the view that the challenge now raised in this writ petition could not be entertained, invoking powers vested on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is left open to the WP(C).No.37076 of 2010-H. 3 petitioner to adjudicate the challenges if any against the refusal to accept the proposal for one time settlement, in the proceedings which are now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. Under the above circumstances, reserving liberty of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 before the statutory forum, this writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that all the contentions raised herein are left open for agitation. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-