IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.31239 OF 2009(Y) PETITIONER/S: 1 HAMSA K.V. EDAKADAPPURAM, P.O. TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 FATHIMA BEEVI, W/O. HAMSA K.V, AGED 55 YEARS, KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, EDAKADAPPURAM P.O, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3 NAFEESA MOL, D/O.HASMA K.V, AGED 40 YEARS, KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, EDAKADAPPURAM P.O, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4 RAHEEM S/O. HASMA K.V, AGED 32 YEARS, KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, EDAKADAPPURAM P.O, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5 RAHMAT D/O, HASMA K.V, AGED 23 YEARS, KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, EDAKADAPPURAM P.O, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. * IMPLEADED WIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.2010 IN I.A.NO.706/10 IN W.P.C. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, UPHILLA, MALAPPURAM., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,, AND AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2 THE KERALA STATE FISHERMEN DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE, FISHERMEN DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION NANDANKODE,, KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES AND PORT, (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No.31239 OF 2009(Y) 2 4 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (BANKING & INSURANCE), DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF, FINANCE, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHANASST.S.G OF INDI R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA OTHER PRESENT: SR. GP. S. GOPINATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.31239 OF 2009(Y) 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 28th day of November 2019 This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act. 2. It is stated that Ext.P4 possession notice had been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had approached this Court on the ground that he was not liable to be proceeded against, since he was a fisher man and an application preferred by him was pending before the 2nd respondent Commission. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the loan in question has been closed and that nothing survives for consideration in the writ petition. In view of the fact that the loan has been closed, the issue raised by the petitioner does not survive for consideration in the writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly closed as infructuous. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN Dxy JUDGE WP(C).No.31239 OF 2009(Y) 4