IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21365 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KARUPPAN, AGED 85 YEARS, VAPPALA VALIYA KALLINGAL HOUSE, VETTEKKARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. OFFICE INSPECTOR/SPECIAL SALE OFFICER IN CHARGE, THE OTTAPPALAM PRIMARY CO-OP.AGRL.AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.P.621, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA. 2. SECRETARY, OTTAPPALAM PRIMARY CO-OP.AGRL.AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.P.621, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.21365 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Admittedly, petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent Bank. Proceedings for recovery has been initiated and the property has been notified for sale by Ext.P4 dated 19.6.2009. Sale is scheduled to take place on 31.7.2009 and the amount to be realised is indicated as Rs.3,76,766/-. 2. After the publication of Ext.P4 notice, petitioner submits that he made Ext.P1 representation dated 1.7.2009 for the benefit of Ext.P2 One Time Settlement Scheme. According to the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P2, the same has been made over to the Sale Officer and that has been intimated by the Bank as per Ext.P3 communication dated 17.07.2009. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed praying that the sale should be stayed until a decision WP(c).No.21365/09 2 on Ext.P1 is taken. 3. In my view, if there was any bona fides the petitioner could have approached the Bank or at least this court immediately on the publication of Ext.P4 sale notification. On the other hand, when the sale is scheduled to take place on day after tomorrow, the writ petition is filed and a stay is sought for. Therefore I do not see any justification for granting the prayer sought for by the petitioner. Now that the petitioner had filed Ext.P1 claiming the benefit of One Time Settlement, the Bank should take a decision on Ext.P1. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 5. The sale scheduled as per Ext.P1 will go on, but its confirmation will be deferred, if the petitioner remits Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 12.30 P.M on 31.7.2009. If the petitioner complies with the aforesaid condition, it is directed that the Bank should consider Ext.P1 and a decision thereon shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner. WP(c).No.21365/09 3 Confirmation of the sale be deferred till a decision is taken on Ext.P1 and it will depend upon the decision to be taken on Ext.P1. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 and 2 or compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.21365/09 4