IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 5721 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHIBU JOHN, S/O.ULAHANNAN JOHN, AGED 45 YEARS, MAMPRAYIL HOUSE, VATTAKUNNU P.O, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.T.K.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DENA BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH,280 D, GOOD SHEPARD STREET, KOTTAYAM 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE SARFESI ACT, DENA BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, 280D, GOOD SHEPARD STREET, KOTTAYAM 686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.C.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.5721 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for immediate interference. Taking note of the submissions from the part of the petitioner, the coercive steps were intercepted on 22.2.2010, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-, within one week and another Rs.50,000/- within one week thereafter. 2. Subsequently, in view of the submissions made from the part of the respondent bank that the sale had already been effected, it was observed by this Court that the petitioner had to implead the successful bidder as well, if so advised. The petitioner filed an I.A.3994/2010 to implead the successful bidder as the additional 3rd respondent. W.P.(C).No.5721 of 2010 2 However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not chosen to satisfy the condition imposed by this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits with reference to the contentions in the counter affidavit, that no interference is warranted in this case, more so, when the petitioner has not chosen to comply with the condition imposed by this Court. There is no case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has complied with the condition and hence this Court does not find it as a fit case so as to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as available under the statute concerned. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl