IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17161 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MARIYAMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE THOMAS, R/AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHITTARIKKAL POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OP.BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER - 671001 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ARBTRATOR CUM SALE OFFICER, THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671001 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN,SC,KASARGOD DIST.CO.BAN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S. ABDUL SALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17161 of 2011 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 15.6.2011. EXHIBIT P3: REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE. Kp/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17161 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 notice issued by the sale officer of the first respondent bank informing the petitioner that if the sum of Rs.2,38,525/- with interest is not paid on or before 29.6.2011, the immovable properties described therein will be brought to sale and sold in public auction is under challenge in this writ petition. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that the bank has taken hasty steps to sell the petitioner's property without extending to her the benefits under various Government schemes. 2. Exts.P1 and P2 notices disclose that the issue relates to the execution of an award passed by the second respondent. The award had attained finality. Even after the award, the petitioner and her predecessor-in-interest did not repay the loan and therefore the bank took steps to execute the award. It was in such circumstances that the impugned notices were issued. As the decree holder the bank is entitled to execute the award by bringing the security to sale. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned notices are in any way illegal. The next contention raised by the WPC No.17161/2011 2 petitioner is that the benefits available to the petitioner under various Government schemes have not been extended to her. 3. It is relevant to note that during the past five years several schemes had been introduced by the Government for giving benefits to persons who have availed loans from co-operative institutions. The last of such schemes was the one which was brought into force by Circular No.63 of 2010 dated 23.12.2010. The said scheme was in force till 31.3.2011. Apart from stating that the benefits under various schemes have not been extended to the petitioner, the petitioner has not pleaded that at any point of time after the award was passed, she had approached the first respondent bank with a request to extend to her the benefits under any of the said schemes. Therefore the mere fact that various schemes were in force in the past is not a reason to interfere with Ext.P1. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps