IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No. 1283 of 2008 -------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5099/2008 DATED 06/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ K.P. CHANDRAN, KANNAMPADATH, VALLIKUNNU.P.O, ARPUKKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.SIJU RAJAN SMT.M.R.ANUPAMA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED K-48, P.B 198, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM C0-OPERATIVE AGIRCULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., K-48, PB 198, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1283 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Appellant before us has defaulted in paying loan amounts due to the third respondent. In the Petition filed, he had called in question the legality or otherwise of the demand notices issued by the third respondent Bank, directing the defaulter to pay off the amounts due to the Co-operative Bank. 2. The primary assertion in the writ petition was that the third respondent Bank without complying with Ext.P4 order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19253 of 2007 ought not to have issued the demand notice. 3. This Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.19253 of 2007 had only directed the respondents to furnish the statement of accounts and further had directed the petitioner that after receipt of the statement of accounts he shall pay the amount due to the Co-operative Bank in easy monthly instalments. 4. By the present impugned order, the learned Single Judge W.A.No.1283 of 2008 2 has disposed of the writ petition by his order dated 6th March, 2008 and in that has stated that the third respondent Bank after receipt of the orders passed by this Court, in fact, had prepared the statement of accounts and had sent the same to the petitioner and that statement of accounts was returned to the Co-operative Bank as unclaimed. Therefore, the learned Judge has proceeded that the respondents have complied with Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. 5. However, taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and he is facing some financial problem, the learned Judge has granted some instalment facility. Even without paying that amount, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, after expiry of the time granted by the learned Judge for settling amounts due to the third respondent Co- operative Bank. 6. Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that during the pendency of the writ appeal, the State Government has come out with certain schemes which would help an agriculturist who is a defaulter to a Co-operative Bank. If that is so, the appellant will approach the respondents for appropriate reliefs. W.A.No.1283 of 2008 3 7. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to entertain this writ appeal for the reason that the learned Judge has not committed any error whatsoever while disposing of the writ petition. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk