IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 2056 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.28805/2008 DATED 26/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MRITHULA JAYADEEP, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.JAYADEEP, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOVILAKATHUMKADAVU, PALLIPORT.PO. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, ALUVA. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, ALUVA. 3. MR.SIVADASAN.P., S/O.SRI.REGHURAMA MENON, FLAT NO.3-A, (2) STAR PARK, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019. 4. MR.JOY MATHEW.K., S/O.SRI.K.V.MATHEW, FLAT NO.2-A-(4), STAR PARK, VYTTILA, KOCHI 682 019. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2056 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2008, dated 26th September, 2008, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. (2) In our opinion, the learned Single Judge, firstly, ought not to have entertained the writ petition and, secondly, ought not to have granted any interim order, because the petitioner was before this Court only questioning a notice issued under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Securitisation Act' for short). If for any reason, any person is aggrieved by the said notice he has to file appropriate objections and those objections are required to be considered by the financial institution and pass appropriate orders as required under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act and if any person is aggrieved by the orders so passed under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, he is expected to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Without resorting to anyone of these remedies, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. The learned Single Judge has taken sympathy to the petitioner and has granted W.A.No.2056 of 2008 2 an interim order. Even that most harmless interim order is made the subject matter of this writ appeal. (3) In our opinion, while rejecting this writ appeal we have to impose exemplary cost on the appellant for making unnecessary and uncharitable remarks against the learned Single Judge. (4) Therefore, while rejecting this writ appeal, we impose cost of Rupees five thousand payable by the appellant to the Kerala Legal Service Authority's fund within two weeks time from today. If such deposit is not made as directed by this Court, the Kerala Legal Service Authority is at liberty to recover the amount from the appellant by resorting to the revenue recovery proceedings. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns