IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25252 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.P.S. JAYAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, SREE LAKSHMI, OLARI DESOM, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 2. SUMA JAYAN, W/O.JAYAN, SREE LAKSHMI, OLARI DESOM, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, P.B.NO.123, IST FLOOR, TUDA BUILDING, SAKTHAN ARCADE, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, P.B.NO.123, IST FLOOR, TUDA BUILDING, SAKTHAN ARCADE, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 19086 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NOs. 25252 OF 2009 AND 19086 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayers in WP(C) 25252/2009 are as follows: i) To issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ calling for records leading to the Ext.P4 and P5 and quash the same. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to take possession of the residential houses mentioned as No. 4 and 5 in the Ext.P4. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue a correct statement of accounts to the petitioners. iv) To issue such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Writ Petition 25252/2009 has become infructuous and not pressed any further. Accordingly it is dismissed as not pressed. 2. The prayers in the Writ Petition 19086/2010 are as follows:- i) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to revise the reserve price as current market price and not to sell the properties mentioned in Ext.P1 and P2 below the prevailing market price. ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ calling for records leading to the Ext.P1 and P2 and quash the same as far as it does not fixed the reserved price as prevailing market price. iii) To issue such other reliefs this may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the writ petition. Filing of the earlier Writ Petition (WP(C)25252/2009) or as to the 2 WP(C) No. 25252/2009 & 19086/2010 stand taken by the respondent Bank has not been mentioned anywhere in this Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the prayers and the cause of action are entirely different and hence the omission. Going by the prayers raised, the only grievance projected in this Writ Petition is for directing the 2nd respondent to revise the ‘reserve price’ as per current market price and not to sell the properties mentioned in Ext.P1 and P2 below the prevailing market price. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the fixation of the ‘reverse price’ and the steps taken by the Bank causing the property to be sold, the petitioner is very much having an alternative remedy as provided under the statute. No interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc