IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 25752 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PAPPALLIPARAMBU, KAMBIVELIKKAKAM, PADAMUGHAL P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 5. C.M.SIDDIQUE, CHIRAKKUDY HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. (ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.12998/07) ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R.1,2 SRI.C.A.NAVAS FOR ADDL.R5 SRI.T.A.SHABEERALI FOR ADDL.R5 SMT.C.S.SIMI FOR ADDL.R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 25752/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DTD.27.4.01. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.3.06 BY R2 DTD.3.3.06. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R5A. COPY OF THE APPROVAL LETTER DTD.6.8.07. B. COPY OF THE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DTD.13.8.07. C. COPY OF THE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DTD.16.8.07. D. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.17.8.07. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.25752 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a borrower of loan amounts from the 1st respondent Kerala Financial Corporation. He has defaulted repayment of the loan amounts. Presently the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 to 3 in selling the properties allegedly without notice to him. When the matter was taken up for hering today, the counsel for the petitioner was absent. 2. With the help of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the learned standing standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the averments in the writ petition are not correct. He points out that as stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent had issued notice under Section 29 of the Kerala Financial Corporations Act to the petitioner for recovery of the loan amounts. Since the petitioner did not take any action to clear off the dues, the Corporation took over the primary securities and the unit was taken over on 14.2.2006. The petitioner did not take any action thereafter also and by letter dated 31.3.2006, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the unit would be advertised for sale, if he fails to clear off the dues of the Corporation. Since the petitioner did not respond, the sale was advertised in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 1.7.2006 and thereafter in Mathrubhoomi w.p.c.25752/07 2 and Deshabhimani dailies on 19.6.2007. It is pursuant to such notices that sale was completed and therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the sale was without notice to him. The 1st respondent has also produced documents in support of these contentions. The petitioner has not cared to file a reply affidavit to controvert the averments in the counter affidavit. The standing counsel points out that by order dated 15.11.2007 this Court made it clear that pendency of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent executing a sale deed in favour of the purchaser, who has been impleaded as additional 5th respondent. Accordingly, sale was completed and the sale deed was also executed. 3. After hearing, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case against the validity of the sale proceedings. Admittedly the petitioner is a defaulter. It is on account of non- payment of the dues that respondents 1 to 3 have initiated sale proceedings. I do not find any infirmity in the said sale proceedings in view of the specific averment in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.25752/07 3