IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25519 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.S. VARKEY, S/O. SCARIA, AGED 48, CHERIYANITHOTTATHIL, CHELAKOMBU, NEDUMKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE NEDUMKUNNAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEDUMKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, R.B.I. BUILDING, BAKER JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R1,2 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 25519/2006. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 PHOTO COPYO OF LEDGER OF R1. EXT.P2 PROOF OF REMITTANCE OF rS. 30000/-. EXT.P3 CERTIFICATE DT. 5-3-2005. EXT.P4 ADALATH NOTICE DT. 17-10-2005. EXT.P5 REQUEST FILED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P6 NOTICE FROM THE BANK. EXT.P7 REPLY NOTICE TO EXT. P6. EXT.P8 COMPLAINT DT. 25-8-2006. EXT.P9 COMMUNICATION DT. 6-9-2006. EXT.P10 TABULATION FROM ISSUED TO PETITIONER. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25519 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. However, the first prayer of the petitioner is as follows: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent bank to consider the requests Ext. P5 and P7 for one time settlement of the loan account and to pass order therein in accordance with law with a further direction that the proceedings evidenced by Ext. P6 be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on the above request.” 2. Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that only symbolic possession has been taken and the further proceedings have not been proceeded with. In the above circumstances, the competent authority of the 1st respondent is directed to consider Exts. P5 and P6 and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.